[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24148-24184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am going to shortly ask for unanimous 
consent in order to set up the next vote at 4 o'clock. I am waiting for 
the ranking member to return. He should be here shortly.
  I see a Senator on the floor. If I could ask the Senator from 
Kentucky, does he wish to request time to speak?
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak, yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will yield for the Senator from 
Kentucky to speak for a few minutes, and then I will come back, and we 
will try to get unanimous consent, again, to set the vote at 4 o'clock.
  I remind all Members of the Senate on both sides that the majority 
leader has asked us to finish this Transportation/Housing bill by 
tonight. We are going to be here late. Members do need to get their 
amendments to the floor, get them offered. We will work our way through 
them. But it is imperative we understand from everyone as soon as 
possible what business they need us to accomplish. Again, we expect to 
finish this bill by tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am dismayed at the lack of 
consideration given to Senator Cornyn's resolution on General Petraeus 
and the troops. I condemn the comments made by the Democrats concerning 
our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. The vendetta against our 
military must stop.
  It sickens me to hear the comments some Democrats are making against 
General Petraeus. By attacking his character and reputation, these 
Democrats are attacking all our men and women in the military. On 
behalf of all these proud men and women who sacrifice their lives every 
day for our Nation, I am here to say these actions and accusations have 
no place in public discourse.
  Americans do not attack the character of those who risk their lives 
to protect us. The lies, deceit, and disinformation the Democratic 
propaganda machines are feeding to the American people must stop.
  To suggest that our troops and General Petraeus are motivated by 
politics rather than patriotism and love of our country is wrong. It 
diminishes the sacrifice each of them makes and their families have 
made in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world.
  These attacks are made by some of the same people who voted on 
January 26--this year--to unanimously confirm General Petraeus.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record rollcall vote No. 33.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress--1st Session

   As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the 
                direction of the Secretary of the Senate


                              vote summary

       Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Lt. Gen. David H. 
     Petraeus, U.S. Army, to be General)
       Vote Number: 33.
       Required For Majority: \1/2\.
       Nomination Number: PN178.
       Nomination Description: Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, in the 
     Army, to be General.
       Vote Counts: Yeas, 81; Nays, 0; Not Voting, 19.
       Vote Date: January 26, 2007, 09:45 a.m.
       Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed.

                      Alphabetical by Senator Name

     Akaka (D-HI), Yea
     Alexander (R-TN), Yea
     Allard (R-CO), Yea
     Baucus (D-MT), Yea
     Bayh (D-IN), Yea
     Bennett (R-UT), Yea
     Biden (D-DE), Yea
     Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
     Bond (R-MO), Yea
     Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting
     Brown (D-OH), Yea
     Brownback (R-KS), Yea
     Bunning (R-KY), Yea
     Burr (R-NC), Yea
     Byrd (D-WV), Yea
     Cantwell (D-WA), Not Voting
     Cardin (D-MD), Yea
     Carper (D-DE), Yea
     Casey (D-PA), Yea
     Chambliss (R-GA), Not Voting
     Clinton (D-NY), Yea
     Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting
     Cochran (R-MS), Yea
     Coleman (R-MN), Yea
     Collins (R-ME), Yea
     Conrad (D-ND), Yea
     Corker (R-TN), Yea
     Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
     Craig (R-ID), Not Voting
     Crapo (R-ID), Yea
     DeMint (R-SC), Yea
     Dodd (D-CT), Yea
     Dole (R-NC), Yea
     Domenici (R-NM), Yea
     Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting
     Durbin (D-IL), Yea
     Ensign (R-NV), Yea
     Enzi (R-WY), Yea
     Feingold (D-WI), Yea
     Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
     Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
     Grassley (R-IA), Yea
     Gregg (R-NH), Yea
     Hagel (R-NE), Yea
     Harkin (D-IA), Yea
     Hatch (R-UT), Yea
     Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
     Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
     Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting
     Isakson (R-GA), Yea
     Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
     Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
     Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
     Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
     Kohl (D-WI), Yea
     Kyl (R-AZ), Not Voting
     Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
     Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
     Leahy (D-VT), Not Voting
     Levin (D-MI), Yea
     Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
     Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
     Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
     Lugar (R-IN), Yea
     Martinez (R-FL), Not Voting
     McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
     McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
     McConnell (R-KY), Yea
     Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
     Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
     Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
     Murray (D-WA), Yea
     Nelson (D-FL), Yea
     Nelson (D-NE), Yea
     Obama (D-IL), Yea
     Pryor (D-AR), Yea
     Reed (D-RI), Yea
     Reid (D-NV), Yea
     Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting
     Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
     Salazar (D-CO), Yea
     Sanders (I-VT), Yea
     Schumer (D-NY), Yea
     Sessions (R-AL), Yea
     Shelby (R-AL), Yea
     Smith (R-OR), Not Voting
     Snowe (R-ME), Yea
     Specter (R-PA), Yea
     Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
     Stevens (R-AK), Not Voting
     Sununu (R-NH), Yea
     Tester (D-MT), Yea
     Thomas (R-WY), Not Voting
     Thune (R-SD), Yea
     Vitter (R-LA), Yea
     Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
     Warner (R-VA), Yea
     Webb (D-VA), Yea
     Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
     Wyden (D-OR), Yea

                        Grouped by Vote Position

                                YEAs--81

     Akaka (D-HI)
     Alexander (R-TN)
     Allard (R-CO)
     Baucus (D-MT)
     Bayh (D-IN)
     Bennett (R-UT)
     Biden (D-DE)
     Bingaman (D-NM)
     Bond (R-MO)
     Brown (D-OH)
     Brownback (R-KS)
     Bunning (R-KY)
     Burr (R-NC)
     Byrd (D-WV)
     Cardin (D-MD)
     Carper (D-DE)
     Casey (D-PA)
     Clinton (D-NY)
     Cochran (R-MS)
     Coleman (R-MN)
     Collins (R-ME)
     Conrad (D-ND)
     Corker (R-TN)
     Cornyn (R-TX)
     Crapo (R-ID)
     DeMint (R-SC)
     Dodd (D-CT)
     Dole (R-NC)
     Domenici (R-NM)
     Durbin (D-IL)
     Ensign (R-NV)
     Enzi (R-WY)
     Feingold (D-WI)
     Feinstein (D-CA)
     Grassley (R-IA)
     Gregg (R-NH)
     Hagel (R-NE)
     Harkin (D-IA)
     Hatch (R-UT)
     Hutchison (R-TX)
     Inhofe (R-OK)
     Isakson (R-GA)
     Kennedy (D-MA)
     Klobuchar (D-MN)
     Kohl (D-WI)
     Landrieu (D-LA)
     Lautenberg (D-NJ)
     Levin (D-MI)
     Lieberman (CT)
     Lincoln (D-AR)
     Lugar (R-IN)
     McCaskill (D-MO)
     McConnell (R-KY)
     Menendez (D-NJ)
     Mikulski (D-MD)
     Murkowski (R-AK)
     Murray (D-WA)
     Nelson (D-FL)
     Nelson (D-NE)
     Obama (D-IL)
     Pryor (D-AR)
     Reed (D-RI)
     Reid (D-NV)
     Rockefeller (D-WV)
     Salazar (D-CO)
     Sanders (I-VT)
     Schumer (D-NY)
     Sessions (R-AL)
     Shelby (R-AL)
     Snowe (R-ME)
     Specter (R-PA)
     Stabenow (D-MI)
     Sununu (R-NH)
     Tester (D-MT)
     Thune (R-SD)
     Vitter (R-LA)
     Voinovich (R-OH)
     Warner (R-VA)
     Webb (D-VA) .
     Whitehouse (D-RI)
     Wyden (D-OR)

                             Not Voting--19

     Boxer (D-CA)
     Cantwell (D-WA)
     Chambliss (R-GA)
     Coburn (R-OK)
     Craig (R-ID)
     Dorgan (D-ND)
     Graham (R-SC)
     Inouye (D-HI)
     Johnson (D-SD)
     Kerry (D-MA)
     Kyl (R-AZ)
     Leahy (D-VT)
     Lott (R-MS)
     Martinez (R-FL)
     McCain (R-AZ)
     Roberts (R-KS)
     Smith (R-OR)
     Stevens (R-AK)
     Thomas (R-WY)

                         Grouped by Home State

       Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea; Shelby (R-AL), Yea.
       Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea; Stevens (R-AK), Not Voting.
       Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Not Voting; McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting.
       Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea; Pryor (D-AR), Yea.
       California: Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting; Feinstein (D-CA), 
     Yea.
       Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea; Salazar (D-CO), Yea.
       Connecticut Dodd (D-CT), Yea; Lieberman (CT), Yea.
       Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea; Carper (D-DE), Yea.
       Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Not Voting; Nelson (D-FL), Yea.
       Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Not Voting; Isakson (R-GA), Yea.
       Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea; Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting.
       Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Not Voting; Crapo (R-ID), Yea.
       Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea; Obama (D-IL), Yea.
       Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea; Lugar (R-IN), Yea.
       Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea; Harkin (D-IA), Yea.
       Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea; Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting.
       Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea; McConnell (R-KY), Yea.
       Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea; Vitter (R-LA), Yea.
       Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea; Snowe (R-ME), Yea.
       Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea; Mikulski (D-MD), Yea.
       Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea; Kerry (D-MA), Not 
     Voting.

[[Page 24149]]

       Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea; Stabenow (D-MI), Yea.
       Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea; Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea.
       Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea; Lott (R-MS), Not Voting.
       Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea; McCaskill (D-MO), Yea.
       Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea; Tester (D-MT), Yea.
       Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea; Nelson (D-NE), Yea.
       Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea; Reid (D-NV), Yea.
       New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea; Sununu (R-NH), Yea.
       New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea; Menendez (D-NJ), Yea.
       New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea; Domenici (R-NM), Yea.
       New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea; Schumer (D-NY), Yea.
       North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea; Dole (R-NC), Yea.
       North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND) Yea; Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting.
       Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea; Voinovich (R-OH), Yea.
       Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting; Inhofe (R-OK), Yea.
       Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Not Voting; Wyden (D-OR), Yea.
       Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea; Specter (R-PA), Yea.
       Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea; Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea.
       South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea; Graham (R-SC), Not 
     Voting.
       South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting; Thune (R-SD), 
     Yea.
       Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea; Corker (R-TN), Yea.
       Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea; Hutchison (R-TX), Yea.
       Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea; Hatch (R-UT), Yea.
       Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Not Voting; Sanders (I-VT), Yea.
       Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea; Webb (D-VA), Yea.
       Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Not Voting; Murray (D-WA), 
     Yea.
       West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea; Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea.
       Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea; Kohl (D-WI), Yea.
       Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea; Thomas (R-WY), Not Voting.

  Mr. BUNNING. You will notice on this vote that not one Senator--not 
one--voted against General Petraeus. During the debate on his 
confirmation, no one questioned his integrity or ability to complete 
his mission--a mission the Senate gave him by confirming him. And now, 
nearly 9 months later, how do we greet him when he comes back to 
deliver a progress report on Iraq that we requested, the Democrats, 
also, in Congress requested? Instead of thanking him for his sacrifices 
and listening to him deliver his report, many Democrats who voted to 
confirm him are either attacking his personal character or not 
defending him from a personal smear attack by their allies at 
MoveOn.org. I cannot believe this slanderous campaign started before 
they even heard one word of General Petraeus's report.
  I read a quote from an anonymous Democratic Senator in the Politico 
newspaper this morning. I want to share it with this body today. This 
Democrat, who did not want to give his or her name, made the following 
statement:

       No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national 
     [television]. The expectation is that the outside groups will 
     do this for us.

  I do not even know where to begin to describe my disgust with that 
one. It shows that the attack on General Petraeus is a coordinated 
attack by MoveOn and its allies.
  Here is just some of what my Democratic colleagues have been saying:

       I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view.

  Here is another one:

       At the end of the day, these are not totally independent 
     free agents. They are an appendage of the administration.

  And another:

       The fact that there are questions about General Petraeus' 
     report is not surprising. . . . By the general's admission, 
     the so-called surge has not achieved its goal. . . .

  Wrong. I cannot believe these false statements have been made on the 
floor of this Senate. It is outrageous to condemn a unanimously 
confirmed general and question his patriotism for this country simply 
for political sake.
  I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are good, 
decent people. But I have to say, I am amazed that more of them have 
not denounced this kind of smear campaign.
  The folks from MoveOn accuse General Petraeus of ``cooking the 
books.'' Is this because his counterinsurgency operation and the surge 
in Iraq are seemingly having positive results? Democrats are talking 
out of both sides of their mouths, and it is time for them to stop 
talking and start listening. Instead of taking political advice from 
leftwing activist groups, Democrats should actually take time to listen 
to General Petraeus's report.
  I cannot tell you how disgusted I was to see the full-page ad 
yesterday in the New York Times--which cost $167,000; that is what it 
cost--questioning the character of a four-star general who only 9 
months ago had the support of this entire body.
  These tactics are insulting and should be condemned. In my book, the 
people who resort to this type of below-the-belt mudslinging are no 
patriots.
  I happen to know General Petraeus. He is a good friend of mine and a 
good friend of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from his days as the 
commanding officer of the 101st Airborne Division. He is a brave 
patriot of the highest moral character and has made immeasurable 
sacrifices for our country. He has spent the last 4 years deployed from 
his home, from his family and his loved ones, overseas serving this 
great Nation. Three of these years he has spent in Iraq, where he has 
worked tirelessly to build security and stability throughout the 
country. His efforts are seeing positive results.
  To suggest he is driven more by politics than by his love of our 
country may possibly be the lowest political attack I have ever seen in 
my time in the Congress. In the 4 years I have known him, not once did 
General Petraeus bring up politics--not once. I have no idea what he 
is--whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. In all of our 
discussions, including the hour I spent with him alone in my office 
before he left for Iraq to implement the surge, I do not believe the 
word ``Democrat'' or ``Republican'' was ever used. What I do know is he 
is a great patriot. He does not deserve to come home to be greeted by 
personal political attacks, especially by the very Democrats who asked 
him to come home and give us this report 9 months ago.
  Let me be clear to my Democratic colleagues: Using leftwing attack 
groups such as MoveOn to discredit General Petraeus--these are the 
worst of the worst. Any politician willing to sacrifice the long-term 
security of the United States in an attempt to salvage a short-term 
political career is beyond deplorable. I will not stand for it. Our 
military will not stand for it. And the American public will not stand 
for it.
  Just yesterday, a poll by the same New York Times reported that 68 
percent of Americans trust the military commanders more than the 
Democratic Congress when it comes to Iraq policy. The American public 
supports our military. It is time for Congress to echo this support.
  Yesterday, in my office, I had the opportunity to sit down one on one 
with a young, brave Kentuckian who had just returned from a long 
deployment in one of Iraq's hotspots. At the end of our visit, he 
turned to me and made one request. He asked for Congress to support the 
troops.
  How can we expect General Petraeus and our troops to successfully 
complete their mission when we keep attacking them and threatening to 
cut off their funds? I promised this young man my support and will 
continue to do all I can to support our troops.
  As we find ourselves 6 years from this tragic event, this terrorist 
event that occurred on September 11, 2001, we must not forget there are 
those out there who still want to harm us. The freedoms we enjoy daily 
are protected by the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, 
including General Petraeus and the young man with whom I visited in my 
office yesterday.
  To all of those who suggest General Petraeus should be called 
``General Betray Us,'' I have a message for you: You are the ones 
betraying our troops and the American people. You are giving aid and 
comfort to our enemies. We used to try people who did this as traitors.
  Just 5 months ago, the Senate Democratic majority leader was quoted 
as saying:


[[Page 24150]]

       No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats.

  Well, I say to my friend, the majority leader, stand by your words. 
Let's focus on succeeding in Iraq and for once show a united support 
for our troops.
  Every night, my wife Mary and I take about 10 minutes at 9 p.m. and 
say prayers for our troops and pray for the safety and security of our 
Nation. I suggest to all who are listening and who are in this body to 
do likewise. Maybe Democrats should take a moment of silence and stop 
criticizing our commanders and troops.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by 
the two leaders today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of 
the Cornyn resolution, the text of which is the exact language of the 
amendment which Senator Cornyn offered this morning. Further, I ask 
consent that if the resolution is agreed to, the preamble be agreed to 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as Members know, we are currently 
debating the Transportation and Housing appropriations bill that funds 
incredibly important infrastructure, from airports to highways to 
bridges to housing programs. The majority leader has instructed us to 
finish this bill by tonight. We have a number of amendments before us 
that we need to work through. Therefore, I will object, and I remind 
all Senators that next week, in just a few short days, we will be 
moving to the Defense authorization bill and a debate on Iraq with 
numerous opportunities for Senators to bring forward issues relating to 
that. So I will object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I feel compelled to respond to the 
comments of my colleague and friend from Kentucky. There are hundreds, 
literally hundreds of organizations throughout the country that are 
loosely supportive of the Republican Party, just as there are hundreds 
of organizations in this country that are loosely supportive of the 
Democratic Party. If one of those Republican organizations makes a 
particular charge or assertion, that does not mean that every Member of 
the U.S. Senate or the House, Republican in nature, or the 
administration believes or agrees with that assertion any more than one 
should believe that an assertion--in this case by an advertisement paid 
for by MoveOn.org--is reflective of the views of all of us. It is not. 
I found the advertisement distasteful, disappointing, and, frankly, not 
reflective of the views I hold and I suspect the views that almost 
everybody in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, holds.
  I don't know General Petraeus well, but I do know him to be a decent 
and honorable person, a good leader; someone who has given really the 
majority of his life to serve the people of our country, sometimes in 
dangerous and harmful situations; someone who is willing to spend not 
just months but years away, separated from his family, in support of 
our country and serving as he has pledged to do, as he has sworn to do. 
He is someone who, in my own experience with him, is a straight 
shooter. He calls them like he sees them. He gives us the good, the 
bad, and the ugly. He did 2 months ago when several of us were over in 
Iraq and met with him and Ambassador Crocker.
  I wish to speak for a moment as a veteran, a Vietnam veteran. My 
friend, Senator Bunning, talked about the question of the lack of 
respect and support our troops receive maybe from those of us on this 
side of the aisle. I couldn't disagree more. I remember what it was 
like 30, 35 years ago when those of us who served overseas in an even 
less popular war in Southeast Asia, the lack of support we received, 
not so much from the Congress but from the American people. That was 
then. This is now. I think as a nation we learned a lot from the way we 
treated veterans back at the end--during and at the end of the Vietnam 
war. We have vowed not to make that same mistake. There is great 
support and affection for our troops, the men and women who serve in 
the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, as great now as I have ever seen 
it.
  While not everybody supports the war this administration has gotten 
us into, we support our troops. We provided money again and again and 
again. The Presiding Officer has led the fight to make sure we not only 
provide our troops with what they need in Iraq or in Afghanistan but to 
make sure the Veterans' Administration has the money it needs to meet 
the needs of our veterans when they come back to us harmed, injured, 
and in some cases maimed for life. I am one of those who come here--and 
I know many others--who come here to work together, and I want us to 
get things done.
  General Petraeus, when he has talked to me--and I have heard him 
testify, and he is literally testifying again today on the Senate 
side--what he has said over and over again is there is not going to be 
a military victory, definitive military victory in Iraq as we would 
think of having occurred in other wars we have fought. The victory is 
going to be a political victory, if there is to be one, and my earnest 
hope is that there will be one. In part, what the surge is about is to 
provide a space for the Iraqi political leaders to make some tough 
decisions they have been unwilling--unable to make for the last 2 
years. How are they going to divvy up and share their oil revenue? The 
potential is enormous. How are they going to share power among the 
different factions? What will they give the Baathists, the civilian arm 
of Sadam's regime? What role will they have in terms of helping the 
country go forward? Are they going to have elections? Are they going to 
amend their Constitution, as they promised to do 2 years ago, to 
protect minority rights? Those are things the Iraqis need to do. Those 
are tough decisions they need to make. They have been unwilling to make 
them. We are providing for them, hopefully, a greater calm, a little 
bit less hostility in which they can meet and deliberate and hopefully 
reach some kind of consensus. That is what we are endeavoring to do.
  One of the roles for us here in the Congress is we play an oversight 
role, overseeing the administration's conduct of the war after getting 
us into this war. That is appropriate, and that is our constitutional 
responsibility. We also have the responsibility and an opportunity to 
try to put pressure--hopefully in a positive way--on the Iraqi leaders 
to do what they need to do if they are going to have a country. We have 
been very forthright in telling them again and again and again. My hope 
is that they begin to listen. If they do, then all of the sacrifice, 
the lives, the injuries, the money we have spent will not have been in 
vain--will not have been in vain. If they don't take advantage of the 
opportunities they have now and in the months ahead, they will have 
squandered this opportunity because the American people, as generous as 
we are, as supportive as we are of democracies here and around the 
world, we are not going to stand by forever and give up our own lives--
the welcoming back of the dead, to care for those who have been 
maimed--we are not going to do this forever. There is a limited period 
of time.
  Back to General Petraeus, basically what he has said--and I heard him 
say it as recently as today--is the Iraqis have an opportunity to save 
their country. We can't do it for them. We can help provide an 
environment where they can make those tough decisions. We are 
endeavoring to do that. We can open the door; they have to walk through 
it. My hope is that they will.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 24151]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2794

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2794 on behalf of 
Senator Bingaman and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2794.

  The amendment is as follows:

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

       On page 55, line 13, strike ``106-49'' and insert ``106-
     69''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. That amendment has been cleared on both sides. I know of 
no further debate on this amendment.
  Mr. BOND. We have nothing on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2794) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2799

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2799 on behalf of 
Senator Obama and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Obama, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2799.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
 made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an 
 amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such 
   amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain 
            certifications regarding Federal tax liability)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has filed 
     all Federal tax returns required during the three years 
     preceding the certification, has not been convicted of a 
     criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and 
     has not been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment 
     for which the liability remains unsatisfied unless the 
     assessment is the subject of an installment agreement or 
     offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal 
     Revenue Service and is not in default or the assessment is 
     the subject of a non-frivolous administrative or judicial 
     appeal.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  Mr. BOND. It is cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2799) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2823

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2823 on behalf of 
Senators Schumer, Clinton, Menendez, Lieberman, Lautenberg, and Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. Clinton 
     for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mr. Dodd, proposes amendment numbered 2823.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and 
    flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace)

       On page 147, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 414.  Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, a report 
     detailing how the Federal Aviation Administration plans to 
     alleviate air congestion and flight delays in the New York/
     New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace by August 31, 2008.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I know of no further debate.
  Mr. BOND. There is no further debate on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2823) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2803

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2803 on behalf of 
Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Schumer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2803.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify how the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
    shall manage and dispose of multifamily properties owned by the 
                               Secretary)

       On page 131, strike lines 5 through 20, and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 220.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     fiscal year 2008, in managing and disposing of any 
     multifamily property that is owned or has a mortgage held by 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary 
     shall maintain any rental assistance payments under section 8 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and other programs 
     that are attached to any dwelling units in the property. To 
     the extent the Secretary determines, in consultation with the 
     tenants and the local government, that such a multifamily 
     property owned or held by the Secretary is not feasible for 
     continued rental assistance payments under such section 8 or 
     other programs, based on consideration of (1) the costs of 
     rehabilitating and operating the property and all available 
     Federal, State, and local resources, including rent 
     adjustments under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted 
     Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (``MAHRAA'') and 
     (2) environmental conditions that cannot be remedied in a 
     cost-effective fashion, the Secretary may, in consultation 
     with the tenants of that property, contract for project-based 
     rental assistance payments with an owner or owners of other 
     existing housing properties, or provide other rental 
     assistance. The Secretary shall also take appropriate steps 
     to ensure that project-based contracts remain in effect prior 
     to foreclosure, subject to the exercise of contractual 
     abatement remedies to assist relocation of tenants for 
     imminent major threats to health and safety. After 
     disposition of any multifamily property described under this 
     section, the contract and allowable rent levels on such 
     properties shall be subject to the requirements under section 
     524 of MAHRAA.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  Mr. BOND. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2803) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with that, we have now cleared several

[[Page 24152]]

amendments. We are again, for the information of all Senators, working 
to come up with a time agreement. We expect to have a vote in a little 
more than an hour, as soon as it has been cleared on the Republican 
side.
  Again, we are going to finish this bill tonight. All Members need to 
get their amendments to the floor, and we will work our way through as 
many as possible. It will be a late night. It will be less of a late 
night the sooner we get amendments to the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue now because, 
as I understand, there is a bit of a lull here. I congratulate the 
managers for wanting to get the bill completed.
  I want to continue this discussion that has been going forward today 
on the treatment of General Petraeus by the group MoveOn.org relative 
to the advertisement they ran, which has been shown on the floor a 
number of times, which referred to him as ``General Betray Us.'' I 
think it was a despicable act. I think it crosses the line, where 
someone who has dedicated his life to defending this Nation would be 
subjected to this type of a personal assassination, personality 
assassination, character assassination. It is totally inappropriate.
  The troops serving us in Iraq are doing so because they believe 
unalterably in the cause of America. They believe what this Nation 
stands for is good and right. They are putting their lives on the line 
to make sure we can maintain the freedoms that are so critical to us. 
You can disagree with the policies on Iraq--and I have a lot of 
reservations about them, especially my severe concerns about what is 
happening with the Government of Iraq in both the area of creating a 
coalition government and stability, and specifically in the area of 
corruption.
  But what you cannot argue with and what should not occur is to say to 
our troops who are out there every day facing danger and, obviously, a 
lethal threat, that we do not support them. Yet when you impugn in such 
a gratuitous and vicious way the integrity of their commander in the 
field, you clearly impugn the troops in the field also. It is wrong, 
and it should not be tolerated.
  General Petraeus has a record which is extraordinary. He has 
dedicated almost four decades, I believe, to the military service of 
this country. He has received the Bronze Star, along with innumerable 
other decorations. He commanded the 101st Airborne. He has been to Iraq 
on three tours and spent the last 4 years overseas away from his 
family. He has put in place an initiative in Iraq which he generally 
believes, as his testimony has shown both yesterday and today before 
the House and the Senate, is making progress in a number of critical 
areas relative to the war on the ground, relative to fighting the 
Islamic terrorists who wish to do us harm.
  Yet before he even got to the Senate or to the House to testify and 
make his case as to why he felt his policy, the policy he is pursuing 
as the general in command, is the correct policy and should be 
sustained, before that could even occur, his character was attacked in 
the most vicious way by people who oppose the war.
  Opposing the war is a legitimate position. There are very strong 
arguments in that area. I do not happen to agree with many of them, but 
I respect those arguments when they are made substantively and 
appropriately. But when an organization, such as MoveOn.org, which is a 
national organization of dramatic influence, steps out and runs a full-
page ad at the cost of $160,000 in the New York Times which has as its 
title, ``Is he General Petraeus or General Betray Us,'' that is an 
inexcusable, vicious and petty act and not becoming of our society and 
a democracy generally.
  The other side of the aisle--and I have the greatest respect for 
Members on the other side of the aisle relative to their commitment on 
this issue--the other side of the aisle said: It is not us doing this. 
Let's remember that MoveOn.org identifies with and openly claims to be 
a major player in the caucus of the Democratic Party. In fact, this 
weekend in the New York Times, the lead spokesman for MoveOn.org said--
and I paraphrase here--but he said: I meet regularly with the 
Democratic leaders of the Senate, and I talk almost daily to the 
Democratic staff of the Democratic leaders of the Senate.
  Earlier in the year, MoveOn.org--and I believe it was the same 
individual, and I again paraphrase--said of the Democratic Party: We 
bought it, it is ours, we are going to dominate it. I see in New 
Hampshire that MoveOn.org is being one of the most aggressive arms of 
the Democratic Party in our State. They are the ones carrying the 
message relative to the war, relative to the Democratic leadership in 
our State, that is for sure.
  So I think this attempt now to step away--the attempt isn't even 
occurring. But this statement by MoveOn.org, which is so over the top 
and so outrageous and so inexcusable in its treatment of an American 
soldier and the troops he commands, should be repudiated openly. It 
should be repudiated by this Senate because it is wrong. It is common 
decency that we should repudiate it.
  Yet we see on this floor that procedural mechanisms are being used to 
protect MoveOn.org. That is what is happening here. Rule XVI, a 
procedural mechanism in this Senate, has been used to keep a very 
reasonably innocuous sense of the Senate from being brought forward to 
a vote. It doesn't take very long to vote on something such as this. We 
could set up a vote in 10 minutes.
  What does this sense of the Senate, which is so inappropriate that it 
has to be knocked down by a procedural action, say? It says:

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
       (1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of 
     the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. 
     Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq;
       (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and 
     integrity of General Petraeus and all of the members of the 
     United States Armed Forces; and
       (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal 
     attacks on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group 
     MoveOn.org.

  I think it is No. 3 that must bother my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, which is causing us not to be able to go to a vote on 
this amendment, that we would repudiate, probably from a financial 
standpoint, one of the biggest contributors to the efforts to fight the 
war and that organization, which openly claims to essentially be an arm 
of the Democratic Party, would be repudiated on the Senate floor. But 
they deserve to be repudiated.
  Honestly, if an organization which identified itself with the 
Republican Party--I cannot think of any that we have that has the type 
of money that MoveOn.org has because we don't have any George Soroses 
funding us or any organization such as that, but if we did have such an 
organization and they did something such as this, I would immediately 
want to repudiate it because somebody of the character and commitment 
of General Petraeus does not deserve this attack. He came back to 
testify because he was asked to come back to testify by committees 
which are majority committees, committees where the majority is 
controlled by the Democratic leadership of the Congress. Yet before he 
gets here to testify before those committees, there is a clear attempt 
to discredit him personally because they do not like the message. So 
instead of attacking the message, they decided to kill the messenger or 
attempt to at least undermine the messenger. That is the goal of this 
ad, nothing more than a petty attempt to basically undermine the 
message General Petraeus has to deliver: We are going to attack him who 
is the messenger, which is gratuitous, inappropriate, inaccurate, 
unfair, and vicious, quite simply vicious, calling him ``General Betray 
Us.''
  So if the majority party does not subscribe to this message, then 
they

[[Page 24153]]

should allow us to offer this resolution right now while he is in town, 
while he is testifying before the Senate today and before the House 
yesterday. They should not ask us to wait until next week to correct 
this egregious act and to go on record to repudiate this egregious act. 
They should not use a parliamentary procedure to defend MoveOn.org. No, 
we should have a vote right now on this resolution, this sense of the 
Senate.
  So at this point, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that rule 
XVI not apply to this sense of the Senate and that a procedural attack 
on this sense of the Senate not be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that we 
immediately move to a vote on this resolution stating we support 
General Petraeus as general in the field, we support his men and women 
who are fighting for us, and that we reject the despicable ad of 
MoveOn.org.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I regret the decision by the majority party 
to not allow us to proceed in this manner, to help us give this good 
man his fair hearing.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2816, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Klobuchar amendment be the pending amendment, and the amendment be 
modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 20, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:


                 I-35W BRIDGE REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION

        For necessary expenses to carry out the project for repair 
     and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35W bridge located in 
     Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, as 
     authorized under section 1(c) of Public Law 110-56 (121 Stat. 
     558), up to $195,000,000, as otherwise eligible under the 
     emergency relief program of the Department of Transportation, 
     to remain available until expended, Provided, That that 
     amount is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress): Provided 
     further, That the Federal share of the costs of any project 
     funded using amounts made available under this section shall 
     be 100 percent in accordance with section 1(b) of Public Law 
     110-56 (121 Stat. 558).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would again notify Members that we are 
likely going to have a vote here in about 35 minutes. We are working 
toward an agreement on that. But I notify Members to come to the floor 
for a vote in a short while.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that at 4:15, the Senate proceed 
to a vote on a motion to table the Coburn amendment No. 2810 and that 
Senator Coburn be allowed the last 10 minutes prior to the vote in 
order to speak on his amendment. I further ask unanimous consent to 
preclude any other amendments prior to the Coburn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2795

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside. I call up amendment No. 2795 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2795.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

 (Purpose: To provide funding for 3,000 units of permanent supportive 
  housing for homeless, disabled, and elderly persons in the State of 
                   Louisiana, and for other purposes)

       On page 114, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

                      Permanent Supportive Housing

       For the provision of 3,000 units of permanent supportive 
     housing as required under the Road Home Program of the 
     Louisiana Recovery Authority and approved by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development, $70,000,000, of which 
     $20,000,000 shall be for project-based vouchers under section 
     8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)(13)), and $50,000,000 shall be for grants under the 
     Shelter Plus Care Program as authorized under subtitle F of 
     title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11403 et seq.): Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development shall, upon request, make funds 
     available under this paragraph to the State of Louisiana or 
     its designee or designees:  Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of administering the amounts provided under this paragraph, 
     the State of Louisiana or its designee or designees may act 
     in all respects as a public housing agency as defined in 
     section 3(b)(6) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)): Provided further, That subparagraphs (B) 
     and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with respect 
     to vouchers made available under this paragraph: Provided 
     further, That the amounts provided by this paragraph are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution of the budget for fiscal year 2008.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her leadership in managing this bill. We have had many important 
amendments discussed, and, of course, the Transportation and HUD 
appropriations bill is one of the most important of all of our 
appropriations bills. It covers all of our transportation 
infrastructure, including mass-transit and housing initiatives and 
others. I could not let this opportunity go by without offering an 
amendment that is one important piece of an overall puzzle for recovery 
in my State. It is my sincere hope that we can pass this amendment 
today, but if not, I am willing to work with the distinguished chair 
and ranking member to incorporate this provision in the appropriate 
legislative vehicle.
  We are still struggling, despite the wonderful amounts of money from 
volunteers particularly and time from volunteers and appropriations 
that have come from Congress to help rebuild homes, we are still 
struggling from a catastrophic flood in south Louisiana, primarily in 
southeast Louisiana in the city of New Orleans, that region, St. 
Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish, Orleans Parish, parts of Jefferson, 
and others. There was also tremendous flooding in the southwest part of 
the State caused by Hurricane Rita, which came 4 weeks after Hurricane 
Katrina.
  While the country is used to dealing with hurricanes and we have all 
had large ones and small ones and ferocious ones and minor ones to deal 
with, we have never, at least in the last 100 years or so, dealt with 
the devastation following the levee breaks and flooding and pumping 
systems that collapsed that should have worked. I tell people, if they 
can just imagine what the Netherlands would look like if the little guy

[[Page 24154]]

with his finger in the dike--if it didn't work one day and the dike 
broke and the Netherlands basically went underwater. It is a country, 
and it is much smaller than the United States. In fact, it would fit 
inside of Louisiana. But, nonetheless, it is a very powerful economic 
engine in Europe. To have that dike and levee system fail and the 
catastrophe that would result in large measure is kind of what happened 
in New Orleans and the region.
  You can imagine the difficulty of rebuilding 200,000-plus residences, 
some individual, single-family, owner-occupied homes, some homes that 
were rented, nonsubsidized, and then the rental subsidized sections of 
the city, public housing, affordable housing, workforce development 
housing--there are many words to describe these types of housing.
  I come to say that rebuilding this housing stock is quite a challenge 
for our delegation. Congress can provide vast amounts of tax credits, 
grants, loans, and waivers but these benefits will not spur recovery if 
we cannot get people back into their homes. That is where recovery must 
start and end. For example, in Louisiana alone we had over 20,000 
businesses destroyed. Business cannot open their doors if their workers 
have nowhere to live. Louisiana also had 875 schools destroyed. Again, 
teachers cannot come back to school and teach our children if they do 
not have a roof over their heads. So a fundamental piece of recovery in 
the gulf coast is to allow disaster victims to return home and rebuild.
  The amendment I offer today for consideration--I thank Senator Murray 
for being such an outstanding leader on previous appropriations bills 
to try to push this issue for additional funding and help--is 
specifically to complement or parallel our efforts for helping 
homeowners get back. There is a bill, S. 1668, the Gulf Coast Housing 
Recovery Act, which is coming through the Banking Committee which is 
going to help our public housing residents and workforce development 
housing. This is because we lost thousands of units of public 
subsidized housing. I am pleased to work alongside Senate Banking 
Committee Chairman Chris Dodd to hopefully secure a hearing on this 
important bill in the coming weeks and to work with my colleagues to 
usher it out of committee as soon as possible.
  In regards to this bill, I should note that the recovery of public 
housing is one area that has not received much national press 
attention, even though prior to Hurricane Katrina, the Housing 
Authority of New Orleans--HANO operated over 7,000 public housing 
units, with about 5,100 units occupied. These residents, just like 
renters and homeowners, have a right to return home. We must provide 
them with the means and opportunity to do so. S. 1668, which I have 
mentioned would provide the means and opportunity necessary to make 
this happen.
  I will not go into great detail on this legislation today but given 
its importance to my state, and the entire gulf coast, let me summarize 
the main provisions in this bill. First, this bill sets out a process 
to allow New Orleans area public housing residents to return home. 
Next, it strikes a good balance between the redevelopment priorities of 
HANO, developers, and public housing residents to responsibly rebuild 
better affordable housing units in New Orleans. Lastly, this bill 
creates home ownership opportunities, spurs community development, and 
gives a hand up to community nonprofits.
  As evidence of the merits of this bill and the balanced approach we 
have established, I will ask that a copy of an August 27, 2007, 
Washington Post editorial be printed in the Record. This editorial 
clearly outlines the need for this legislation, how it will allow 
responsible mixed-income development, and how if it is passed today, 
responsible developers could begin construction tomorrow if they meet 
requirements in our bill. They are not burdensome requirements, instead 
they ask developers to consult with residents, ensure that when they 
tear down public housing units that they are providing for sufficient 
replacement units of affordable housing. Given that our State has over 
5,000 displaced public housing residents, thousands of people who were 
on the waiting list pre-Katrina to get into public housing, and a 
further 12,000 homeless individuals, I do not feel this is unreasonable 
to require that affordable housing stock be replaced, not lost, during 
this housing crisis.
  I note that according to a June 2007 report by PolicyLink, a national 
research institute, rents have increased as much as 40 to 200 percent 
since the storms, leaving few apartments affordable to families making 
less than the area median income. That is why the amendment I am 
discussing, and S. 1668 are so important. The amendment I offer today 
is included as an authorization in S. 1668 and I would urge my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues to support this bill as I would 
ask their consideration of this amendment today.
  This amendment is an amendment which will help close the loophole for 
the elderly, the disabled, and the homeless. In particular, there are a 
group of people who are too frail or fragile to live on their own, yet 
they do not belong in a hospital. We have many people--I am sure in the 
State of the Presiding Officer, in Pennsylvania, and I was in 
Philadelphia last night, a magnificent city--I am sure you can think of 
many places in Philadelphia where there are homes or apartments for 
disabled elderly, for adults who are not older but they are disabled 
through an accident or injury. They don't belong in a hospital. They 
can't be left alone. But it is sort of group housing, many times run by 
Catholic Charities. Sometimes they are run by other nonprofit 
organizations. We need that kind of housing desperately to help us get 
back, to take care of the most fragile people in our city who are still 
today without shelter. It would help those most at-risk, and those who 
really need the help most in my state. You can imagine the challenge to 
take care of this group under normal circumstances. But here we are, 
dealing with a catastrophe, trying to provide housing for thousands of 
people now returning to the city in a fragile situation. It is our 
obligation as a city, as a State, and as a nation to help. So that is 
basically what my amendment does.
  I note that the Senate has already passed this amendment. It already 
passed this body as part of H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental which 
was enacted last summer. However, much to my chagrin, and to those 
working on this issue in my State, this important provision was taken 
out by the House in final negotiations on the supplemental. So the 
Senate has already in some measure passed this particular proposal. I 
am offering and talking about it today to ask the Senate to consider 
this 3,000 units of supportive housing for the elderly, the disabled, 
and the homeless--the most fragile of our population. This is not 
necessarily the working population. These people can't work. They are 
too old to work, they are too weak to work, or they are too sick. But 
it is, of course, our obligation to help provide them with permanent 
and safe places to live. We all have a percentage of the population. No 
matter where you live, in the Northwest or in the Northeast or in the 
South, a percentage of the population has been overlooked.
  With this in mind, we have to fight to get our homeowners back in 
their houses who are workers and business owners and professionals and 
upwardly mobile middle-class individuals. We have to fight hard to get 
our renters back. Some renters are upwardly mobile and middle class, 
some very wealthy. They just choose not to own a home. There is another 
group of renters that are in subsidized rentals because they have to be 
because they are working at minimum-wage jobs. There is a whole other 
group of people who are neither homeowners, young and vibrant, in the 
middle class and younger, although they might have been at one time. 
They are not in regular rental units. They are the fragile population. 
We have virtually provided no additional funding for them. That is what 
my amendment attempts to do. People are living with relatives. People 
are making ends meet. This amendment would provide $70 million for 
3,000 units

[[Page 24155]]

of permanent supportive housing to assist these at-risk residents.
  As I mentioned, I was able to put this in the Senate-passed version 
of the emergency supplemental but, unfortunately, it was taken out. 
Therefore, I am here to show my support for this proposal, to 
respectfully ask the chairman and ranking member who are handling this 
appropriations legislation to consider this important proposal again 
today. If it can't be adopted by this body today, I would like to ask 
them whether they would be supportive of including this in the next 
supplemental that comes before the Senate. I see the chairman of the 
committee on the floor. I would appreciate knowing if Senator Murray is 
supportive of this amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has raised a 
critically important issue with regard to the need of the disabled and 
homeless citizens in Katrina-impacted areas she knows so well. We are 
going to be developing a supplemental appropriations bill in a very 
short time which we anticipate will include provisions as it relates to 
Katrina. The Senator does have my commitment that I will work with her 
to see what we can do to address that critical need within the 
supplemental.


                     Amendment No. 2795, Withdrawn

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  With that commitment and the opportunity to speak on this important 
issue today--I know there are other amendments that will be 
considered--I am willing to withdraw my amendment at this time and will 
offer it again at an appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to have the previously 
mentioned article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 27, 2007]

                            Home Sweet Home

       Public housing advocates are gearing up for a sit-in at the 
     offices of the Housing Authority of New Orleans tomorrow. 
     Their frustration is understandable. Two years after 
     Hurricane Katrina scattered residents to communities outside 
     the Crescent City, most have yet to return home. But the 
     protesters' goal of getting the displaced back into their old 
     units is wrong. While the historical significance of those 
     structures is undeniable, so is their history of being 
     forlorn concentrations of poverty.
       To tour the barracks-style apartment complexes of New 
     Orleans is to see the best and worst of public housing. 
     Because most of them were built in the 1940s, a walk into one 
     of their cramped units is a walk back in time. For instance, 
     residents can't run water in the bathtub and the bathroom 
     sink at the same time. Warmth in the winter is provided by 
     space heaters. For the most part, the old projects are cut 
     off from the flow of the city because the city's streets 
     don't go through them. Now, if you go to the redeveloped 
     Fischer and St. Thomas complexes, you'll see the best in 
     modern public housing. Warehousing of the poor and 
     marginalizing them from the larger community are out. Modeled 
     on HOPE VI developments, these are mixed-income neighborhoods 
     of townhouses. The homes are spacious. The appliances are 
     new. The sense of hopelessness that envelops Iberville, the 
     one fully functioning old-style public housing project, is 
     not present.
       The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development wants 
     to bring four other old public housing estates into the 
     modern era. But a lawsuit by the Advancement Project, a 
     Washington-based civil rights organization, has stopped HUD 
     from doing so. The lawsuit accuses the agency of cleansing 
     African Americans from New Orleans by keeping the four public 
     housing projects shuttered. It demands a right of return for 
     all New Orleans public housing residents, and it demands that 
     those families go back to the units they fled on Aug. 29, 
     2005. Until the case goes to trial in November, those 
     families will have to wait. This is unconscionable. Yes, they 
     should return. But they should return to something much 
     better than they left.
       At least one developer, Enterprise Community Partners, 
     which has been chosen by HUD to redevelop the Lafitte 
     project, has committed to providing a new public housing unit 
     to every family that lived there before in what would become 
     a mixed-income community. A bill sponsored by Sens. 
     Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) would 
     make what Enterprise is voluntarily doing the law.
       Donna Davis, 52, has lived in the projects since she was 9. 
     The pride in her two-story townhouse in the new Fischer 
     complex was plainly evident as she toured a visitor around. 
     When asked what she would say to people afraid of HUD's 
     redevelopment plans, Ms. Davis looked to her own experience. 
     ``We lived [in Fischer] and stayed there,'' she said. ``Now 
     it's time for us to grow and open up . . . to see how good we 
     can all live.'' If the Dodd-Landrieu bill passes, the 
     Advancement Project should drop its lawsuit. Returning public 
     housing residents deserve to have Ms. Davis's experience.


                           Amendment No. 2816

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to display four charts during debate on the Klobuchar 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have consulted with everyone. As much 
as I would like to comply with the Senator, if we make it four, it is 
going to be six, it is going to be eight. I think we need to keep to it 
a modicum that works for all Senators. At this point, I apologize, but 
I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment offered 
by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and myself. The 
amendment is only a few lines long, but it truly embodies the Minnesota 
spirit of perseverance and rebuilding in light of enormous tragedy.
  Most of us in the North Star State won't ever forget the tragic event 
that befell our largest city on ``eight one'' of this year. Just after 
6 p.m. on that day, the main transportation artery in the heart of 
Minneapolis, the Interstate 35W bridge, fell into the Mississippi 
River, killing 13 people and wounding more than 100 others. The images 
that began to appear on national news within minutes of the collapse 
are still too difficult to describe with words, and the view behind me 
only begins to outline the magnitude this disaster has had on the Twin 
Cities and our entire region. The pictures hardly describe the extent 
of the tragedy.
  As I mentioned on the floor of this body when Senator Klobuchar and I 
returned from surveying the damage of the bridge collapse firsthand 
within hours of the tragedy, this area of the Mississippi River is one 
of Minnesota's most historic. It was here that Father Louis Hennepin 
named the falls of St. Anthony, pictured behind me upstream from the 
wreckage. You can also see Cadwallader Washburn's and Charles 
Pillsbury's flour mills that sprang up along these falls, defining an 
era of growth in our State and earning Minneapolis the title of ``The 
mill city.'' These structures, these falls, and this river include so 
much of our State's history and identity, sitting on the headwaters of 
North America's greatest waterway. This is truly the heart of the 
heartland.
  As I said on August 2, when this bridge fell, part of our Minnesota 
identity fell with it. Within 60 hours of the bridge's collapse, we in 
the U.S. Senate took action and committed the necessary Federal 
resources to rebuild this structure and to rebuild it quickly. I thank 
my colleagues once again, as I thanked them before we adjourned for the 
August recess, for their commitment to the people of Minnesota and to 
reacting decisively when an emergency strikes in our Nation.
  The actions we took in this body before recess set out a blueprint 
for the future of the I-35W bridge and the entire Twin Cities region. 
We provided authorization for emergency funding, $55 million of which 
was sent to the Minnesota Department of Transportation almost 
immediately to begin reconstruction of the bridge. We provided 
immediate assistance in transit funding, including $5 million to assist 
the Twin Cities in their most immediate transportation needs including 
detours and temporary busing, and other Federal resources, such as Navy 
dive teams used to recover bodies under conditions in which there was 
no visibility, with current, twisted metal, steel, and concrete. 
Without these resources, we would not have been able to move so quickly 
to bring some measure of closure to families who have suffered so much.
  Regional transportation administrators descended upon the Twin 
Cities.

[[Page 24156]]

Across the board, we reacted in a way that showed we were there to help 
and assist in recovery and in rebuilding. That was a good thing. But 
while these efforts were an important start, the bridge rebuilding 
process is steaming ahead with bid letting for the bridge this week. I 
received a letter today from Assistant Transportation Commissioner Bob 
McFarlin from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Minnesota Department


                                            of Transportation,

                               Saint Paul, MN, September 11, 2007.
     Hon. Norm Coleman,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Amy Klobuchar,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coleman & Senator Klobucher: On behalf of the 
     Minnesota Department of Transportation, I want to thank you 
     and Congress once again for the quick response in authorizing 
     $250 million in emergency relief funding to help the state 
     respond to the I-35W bridge collapse. Congress and the entire 
     federal government's incredible response has greatly 
     facilitated the ability of the state to recover from this 
     tragedy.
       Now the state is looking to Congress to quickly appropriate 
     the $250 million in emergency funding. The Untied States 
     Department of Transportation has made available $55 million 
     of the $250 million which is helping pay the initial costs of 
     recovery, cleanup, traffic re-routing, and bridge 
     replacement. However, this $55 million and the state's cash 
     flow will likely be depleted by October 2007.
       The Minnesota Department of Transportation is proceeding 
     with bid-letting for the bridge replacement on or about 
     September 19th with award by the end of September. 
     Construction would commence in mid-October.
       If the $250 million in federal emergency relief funding is 
     not appropriated soon, the state will be in a difficult 
     financial situation in trying to quickly replace this bridge 
     and keep other construction projects on schedule.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob McFarlin,
                                    Assistant to the Commissioner.

  Mr. COLEMAN. At the impressive pace the Minnesota Department of 
Transportation is moving toward rebuilding this essential structure, 
this letter states the funding we have already appropriated for 
reconstruction will likely run out by the middle of October, thwarting 
the otherwise amazing progress we are making in recovery from this 
horrible tragedy.
  The Minnesota Department of Transportation will in all likelihood 
receive funding someday from the Federal Government to complete 
reconstruction of this bridge. That is not at question. We authorized 
that funding before we adjourned. What the amendment before us would do 
is simply expedite receipt of this funding so the State can continue 
its reconstruction process on this critical project. We all know it is 
not easy to pass a bill around here. The people of Minneapolis and the 
Twin Cities are still dealing with an emergency, and they need 
emergency funding now. The reconstruction of the bridge stops when the 
money runs out. Who knows when we will have another chance to provide 
funding for this horrible tragedy.
  The time is now. We have a Transportation appropriations bill before 
us with a transportation emergency in our backyard. I ask my colleagues 
to help us rebuild, to help us recover, and to do so today for a 
brighter future and a brighter tomorrow for the people of Minneapolis 
and the people of Minnesota, and, in fact, the people of the entire 
region.
  I urge support for the Klobuchar-Coleman amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized until 4:15.


                           Amendment No. 2810

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are going to be voting on an amendment 
very soon, amendment No. 2810. The whole point of this amendment is to 
reorder our priorities in terms of transportation. We have had 
significant debate on whether certain ongoing projects will be harmed.
  We have seen a Department of Transportation inspector general's 
report that lists five problems with what is happening right now. 
Basically, the conclusion of the report is earmarks are not the most 
effective or efficient use of funds--noncompetitively awarded 
transportation earmarks.
  Let me say that again. Noncompetitively awarded transportation 
earmarks reduce funding for each individual State's core transportation 
funding. They are not in unison with DOT strategic research goals. As a 
matter of fact, the research institute has oftentimes gone around with 
earmarks. They provide funds for projects that would otherwise be 
ineligible for transportation funds. They disrupt the agency's ability 
to fund programs as designated when authorized funding amounts are 
exceeded by what they call overearmarking. That is the technique where 
we put in an earmark, congressionally directed spending, but we do not 
put enough money in to pay for that congressional spending, so that 
excess money goes against the rest of the transportation priorities. 
Then, finally, many low priority earmarked projects are being funded 
over higher priority nonearmarked projects.
  This is a simple amendment that says we are not going to spend money 
on earmarks unless they are for roads and bridges at this time. It does 
not stop earmarks; it just slows them down and says: Whoa. This is a 
lower priority than what we are doing.
  In this bill are over 500 earmarks that come right now to $2.8 
billion. Mr. President, $2.8 billion would go a long way in terms of 
fixing the tremendous number of bridges that are structurally deficient 
in this country. That is just with the National Highway System. That 
does not have anything to do with State transportation highways.
  The real question for this body--and there have been many claims made 
against this amendment. No. 1, this amendment will not lessen the 
amount of money that goes to State transportation departments. That 
money can be rerouted so certain things such as transit initiatives 
will not have to stop. But what it will say is, the Senate is on record 
for saying the highest priority ought to have the highest priority.
  Minnesota is a tragic example of the misplaced priorities we have. Of 
the billions and billions of dollars, well over 10 percent of the last 
Transportation bill--authorization bill--and a significant amount of 
this bill will be spent on projects that are not a priority for a 
State, are not a priority for national transportation, but are our 
priorities. We can differ on what the low level priorities are, but 
nobody can deny we have a significant problem with structurally 
deficient bridges in this country.
  We are going to spend $600,000 on horse-riding facilities, $5.9 
million on a snowmobile trail, $8 million on a parking garage, $532,000 
just on one particular earmark for a pedestrian trail, $1.25 million 
for a day center and park-and-ride facility, $3 million for dust 
control mitigation, and $2.75 million for the National Packard Museum 
when we have bridges falling down?
  I think we have plenty of room to reorder our priorities. This 
amendment does not eliminate any earmark. What it does is delay it. 
There is no question about it. But the purpose is to put us in touch 
with the American people saying: First things first. This does not 
eliminate addressing the 13,000 people who die every year on unsafe 
roads. Those funds are still available.
  We heard from the Senator from Missouri that 400 people succumbed to 
accidents related to bridges in the last year. The fact is, we have had 
almost 40,000 people die a year on our roads. A third of that is 
secondary to alcohol excess. But another third of that is associated 
with unsafe roads and bridges. That is according to the Department of 
Transportation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a

[[Page 24157]]

letter from the Department of Transportation inspector general and an 
accompanying Executive Overview of Report AV-2007-066 of the Department 
of Transportation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Department of Transportation,


                                  Office of Inspector General,

                                Washington, DC, September 7, 2007.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 
         Government Information, Federal Services, and 
         International Security, Committee on Homeland Security 
         and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coburn: We have enclosed the results of our 
     review of congressional earmarks within Department of 
     Transportation (DOT) programs, which we conducted in response 
     to your request. Specifically, you asked that we conduct an 
     independent analysis of the cost, oversight, and impact of 
     congressional earmarks for the most recent fiscal year.
       We determined the total number and dollar amount of 
     congressional earmarks within DOT programs for fiscal year 
     2006, the inclusion of earmarks in DOT's annual planning and 
     evaluation process, and the effects of earmarks on DOT's 
     mission and goals.
       This report provides our analysis of selected programs 
     within the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal 
     Transit Administration, and the Federal Aviation 
     Administration; these agencies accounted for 99 percent of 
     the earmarks (both in number and dollar amount) in DOT for 
     fiscal year 2006.
       We want to express our appreciation to the Department and 
     the various stakeholder organizations for their cooperation 
     during this review.
       If I can answer any questions or be of further service, 
     please contact me or Todd J. Zinser, Deputy Inspector 
     General.
           Sincerely,
                                             Calvin L. Scovel III,
     Inspector General.
                                  ____


                              Introduction

       Over the past year, there has been considerable interest 
     and debate over congressional earmarks. According to the 
     Government Accountability Office, an earmark is a 
     congressional directive in legislation to a Federal agency to 
     spend a specific amount of its budget for a specific entity, 
     project, or service. Earmarking differs from the general 
     appropriations process where Congress grants a lump sum to an 
     agency to distribute according to the agency's authorized, 
     transparent, statutory criteria and merit-based decision-
     making processes.
       In a memorandum published in January 2006, the 
     Congressional Research Service reported that during the 10-
     year period from fiscal year (FY) 1996 to FY 2005, the number 
     of earmarks within Department of Transportation (DOT) 
     appropriations acts and accompanying conference reports 
     increased by more than 1,150 percent--from 167 earmarks in FY 
     1996 to 2,094 earmarks in FY 2005. The amount of dollars 
     earmarked also increased by more than 314 percent--from $789 
     million in FY 1996 to about $3.27 billion in FY 2005 (see 
     figure). Although down in numbers from FY 2005, DOT's FY 2006 
     appropriations included 1,582 earmarks, of which 1,516 were 
     specifically identified in the conference report accompanying 
     the act.
       Not only do earmarks originate in the appropriation 
     process, but they also enter the process through program 
     authorizations. Recent DOT re-authorizations have included a 
     significant number of specific projects with associated 
     funding directed to specific state and local agencies or 
     locations. For example, the current DOT authorization for 
     surface transportation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
     (SAFETEA-LU), accounted for 6,474 (80 percent) of DOT's 8,056 
     earmarked projects for FY 2006. As with most DOT program 
     authorizations, SAFETEA-LU is a multi-year (5 years--from FY 
     2005 to FY 2009) authorization with specified percentages of 
     appropriated funds authorized each year for the given 
     agencies, programs, and activities.
       In August 2006, Senator Coburn--then Chairman of the Senate 
     Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 
     Information, Federal Services, and International Security--
     requested that we conduct an independent analysis of the 
     cost, oversight, and impact of congressional earmarks. As 
     Senator Coburn requested, we defined an earmark as a 
     provision of law, directive, or an item represented in any 
     table, chart, or text contained within a joint explanatory 
     statement or a report accompanying an appropriations or 
     authorization bill that identifies an entity, a program, 
     project, or service and the amount of assistance the Federal 
     agency is to provide.
       Consistent with Senator Coburn's request, we determined (1) 
     the total number and amount of earmarks within DOT for FY 
     2006, (2) the inclusion of earmarks in DOT's annual planning 
     and project evaluation processes, and (3) the effects of 
     earmarks on DOT's mission and goals.
       We focused our analysis on earmarks within DOT's programs 
     administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 
     Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation 
     Administration (FAA), because these three Operating 
     Administrations accounted for 99 percent of the earmarks for 
     FY 2006 (both in number and dollar amount) in DOT. Exhibits A 
     through E provide details on: (A) the total number and dollar 
     amount of earmarks by program with DOT for FY 2006; (B) 
     earmarked projects that bypassed established selection and 
     review processes or planning and programming processes; (C) 
     our analysis of earmarks' impact on agencies' programs; (D) 
     stakeholders interviewed; and (E) our objectives, scope and 
     methodology, and related audits. We conducted this review 
     between December 2006 and August 2007, in accordance with 
     generally accepted Government Auditing Standards as 
     prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States.
       In February 2007, the President signed a joint resolution 
     passed by Congress that provided appropriations for FY 2007 
     with a moratorium on earmarks. Section 112 of this joint 
     resolution states that ``any language specifying an earmark 
     in a committee report or statements of managers accompanying 
     an appropriations act for FY 2006 shall have no legal effect 
     with respect to funds appropriated'' under the joint 
     resolution.
       The Office of Management and Budget has taken steps to 
     enforce the joint resolution by requiring that Federal 
     agencies only fund projects or activities that are 
     ``specifically identified in statutory text'' and ``in 
     accordance with authorizing law, using statutory criteria, 
     such as funding formulas, eligibility standards, and merit-
     based decision-making.''

                           Executive Overview

       Overall, we identified 8,056 earmarked projects within the 
     Department's programs that received more than $8.54 billion 
     for FY 2006 (see exhibit A). Of the 8,056 earmarked projects 
     for FY 2006: 66 earmarked projects were specified in the text 
     of the appropriation act; 1,516 earmarked projects were 
     specified in the conference report accompanying the 
     appropriation act; 6,474 earmarked projects were identified 
     in the appropriation act's accompanying conference report 
     sections referring to distribution of FY 2006 authorized 
     funding as directed by SAFETEA-LU.
       FHWA, FTA, and FAA accounted for 99 percent of these 
     earmarked projects, both in number (8,011 of the 8,056 
     projects) and dollar amount (about $8.49 billion of the more 
     than $8.54 billion). FHWA had the highest number of earmarked 
     projects at 6,556, and FTA had the highest percentage of its 
     FY 2006 appropriation earmarked at 28 percent.
       Generally, before a capital or research project can receive 
     DOT funding, either discretionary or formula, it must be the 
     product of a planning process. Planning for highway, transit, 
     and airport improvement projects takes place at the local, 
     state, or Federal levels. For highway and transit projects, 
     each metropolitan planning organization (MPO), in cooperation 
     with the state and public transportation operators, must 
     develop a long-range transportation plan and a short-range 
     transportation program for the urbanized areas within the 
     state. Integral to the planning process is an evaluation of 
     factors such as a project's enhancement of mobility, 
     maximization of safety and security, relief of congestion, 
     financial viability, and protection of the environment. The 
     planning process culminates in a list of projects to be 
     funded within 4 years.
       To be eligible for Federal funds, a project must be part of 
     the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which is 
     approved by the MPO and the Governor, and the State's 
     Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is approved 
     by the Governor, FHWA, and FTA. Subsequent to the planning 
     process, FHWA and FTA select projects to receive 
     discretionary grants based on their merits as reflected in 
     the transportation plans. For formula grants, the states make 
     the selections based on their priorities and in cooperation 
     with the MPOs and local officials.
       To be considered for funding under the Airport Improvement 
     Program (AlP), a project would be part of the national 
     Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP), which is formulated 
     by FAA in cooperation with states, planning agencies, and 
     airport sponsors. In all cases, the planning process 
     culminates in a list of priority projects to be funded within 
     a given time frame.
       However, our review of 7,760 earmarked projects valued at 
     $8.05 billion within FHWA, FTA, and FAA programs disclosed 
     that 7,724 of the 7,760 projects (99 percent) either were not 
     subject to the agencies' review and selection processes or 
     bypassed the states' normal planning and programming 
     processes. For example, 125 AIP projects, totaling almost 
     $201 million, were earmarked for FY 2006. Of the 125 
     earmarked projects, 72 (about 58 percent), totaling $132.4 
     million, were on FAA's list of candidates to receive AIP 
     funds for critical airport planning and development 
     projects--the remaining 53 projects were not. These 53 
     projects, totaling about $68.5 million, would not have been 
     considered for funding in FY 2006 if they had not received 
     earmarks.
       There were earmarked projects we reviewed that were 
     evaluated as ``highest'' priority projects and would have 
     been fully

[[Page 24158]]

     funded regardless of being earmarked. For example, the New 
     Starts Program is the Federal Government's primary financial 
     resource for supporting locally planned, implemented, and 
     operated transit fixed ``guideway'' systems. From heavy to 
     light rail, from commuter rail to bus rapid transit systems, 
     these projects have improved the mobility of millions of 
     Americans; helped to improve air quality; and fostered the 
     development of more viable, safe, and livable communities.
       However, earmarks may not be the most effective or 
     efficient use of funds on programs within FHWA, FTA, and FAA. 
     Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low 
     priority are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked 
     projects. For example, for FY 2006, FAA considered 9 of the 
     10 new earmarked projects, totaling $31.5 million, in its 
     Tower/Terminal Air Traffic Control Facility Replacement 
     Program within the Facilities and Equipment account to be low 
     priority projects that would not have received funding 
     without the earmarks. Funding these new low priority projects 
     in FY 2006 added to the already substantial backlog of 
     replacement projects from earmarks in prior fiscal years and 
     caused FAA to delay the planning of its higher priority 
     replacement projects by at least 3 years.
       Some earmarks are providing funds for projects that would 
     otherwise be ineligible. For example, for FY 2006, 16 of 65 
     earmarked projects, totaling more than $14 million, in FHWA's 
     Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program did not meet 
     statutory program criteria and would not have received 
     funding were it not for a section in DOT's appropriations law 
     that allows funding for earmarks that do not meet the 
     statutory requirements of the program.

  Mr. COBURN. An investigation by the inspector general found the 
following: For 2006, there were 8,056 earmarks within the Department of 
Transportation program, with a total of more than $8.54 billion, or 
over 13 percent of DOT's appropriation. So for one in seven and a half 
dollars, we have directed the spending, and for most of them, it is 
against the highest priority things we should be funding. So thinking 
about the risks, thinking about the costs, thinking about our standing 
in terms of doing what we should be doing to make sure the highest 
ordered priorities are taken care of--that the bridges that are 
structurally deficient will be addressed, that the highways that do not 
meet or exceed a good or acceptable level of safety--we ought to be 
redirecting this money in that direction. That is what this amendment 
is about.
  We get three choices. We can table the amendment, as I think the 
motion will be made so we do not have to deal with it, saying we should 
not change our priorities. We can say yes, and we can renew the faith 
in the American people that we understand we are here to do priority 
work. We are not necessarily here to do the next best thing for our 
political careers.
  However you slice it, many of the earmarks are great things. They are 
great needs which have to be met at some point in time. But most of the 
earmarks that go for the bridges and roads will not be affected by this 
amendment at all. The ones that will be affected are those earmarks 
which are not a priority.
  I know we are going to have a vote. I want to give the subcommittee 
chairman, as well as Ranking Member Bond, a chance to answer this 
debate. I will say I plan on offering this amendment in another form, 
if this amendment goes down, limiting it and more directing it, if in 
fact that is the case.
  But we have a duty to do what is in the best interest of our 
transportation needs in this country. I realize there is a debate, and 
I realize there is disagreement with me on this issue. But it is going 
to be hard for us as a body to justify 500 separate earmarks that do 
not address the bridges in this country, will not help us assess that.
  Earlier today, Senator Murray alluded to the $1 billion increase. 
Well, that is true, but we did not increase the money; we just made it 
toward the Transportation fund. The trust fund will run out of money a 
year earlier. So all we did was speed up spending that is allowed in 
the trust fund that we have today, and that will be consumed more 
quickly. I agree we probably should do that. But we will, in fact, have 
to address this issue, and it is about priorities.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had a good discussion with the 
Senator from Oklahoma earlier in the day. Just to recap for those who 
may have missed it after he gave his eloquent pitch, I would say on 
behalf of those of us who worked on the bill--certainly the great 
leadership of our chair, the distinguished Senator from Washington--
that when we put in earmarks, when we target specific investments to 
our State, they reflect the judgment of each Member of this body on 
what is important in his or her State based on what we hear from 
elected officials, transportation officials, and community leaders who 
say these are their top priorities.
  Now, my friend from Oklahoma is earmarking money for bridges. If he 
believes Oklahoma is not putting in an adequate share of its money for 
bridges, then we would be happy to entertain earmarks. But don't tell 
us to earmark ours. I work with the Missouri Department of 
Transportation officials. They say our highest needs are mostly in 
highways. We don't want to lose that money from highways.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Coburn amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the Coburn amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Barrasso
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Isakson
     Kyl
     McCaskill

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Craig
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 2816, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2816, as 
modified. There is no further debate and I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2816), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 24159]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Cornyn be recognized to offer an amendment related to Mexican trucking 
at 6 p.m.; that there then be 60 minutes of debate with respect to the 
Cornyn amendment and the pending Dorgan amendment No. 2797 and that the 
amendments be debated concurrently, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Dorgan and Cornyn, or their designees; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, without further intervening 
action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Dorgan 
amendment, to be followed by 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and 
controlled as noted above, prior to a vote in relation to the Cornyn 
amendment; that no amendments be in order to any amendments covered in 
this agreement prior to the vote; that after the vote with respect to 
the Dorgan amendment, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes for the 
remaining amendment in this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma is on 
the floor and will be offering an amendment in a minute. Prior to his 
offering that amendment, I ask that the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. 
Klobuchar, be given 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for working on a 
bipartisan basis. I thank Senators Murray and Bond for their work on 
this issue and for passing the appropriation for the funding to fix the 
I-35W bridge in Minneapolis.
  The Senate acted incredibly quickly after this tragedy occurred--
August 1. The next day, Senator Coleman and I were there. We saw this 
tragedy firsthand and the heroic responses of our rescue workers in 
Minnesota. Ordinary citizens were diving into the water; they didn't 
know whom they would find and they didn't know the danger. They rescued 
people. It could have been so much worse. Our citizens came together 
and now this Senate comes together. I thank them for this. We are 
losing about $400,000 a day. This was a major thoroughfare in our town 
and in our Twin Cities area.
  We are going to rebuild. On the day that we went and saw the shards 
of steel and the broken bridge that had flopped into the middle of the 
Mississippi River, I said that bridges in America should not fall down. 
This bridge did. When bridges in America fall down, we must rebuild. By 
taking this important action today to fund the rebuilding of the 
bridge, the Senate has started that process. I thank my colleagues. I 
thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment. We will now move 
on to rebuilding our bridge and bringing our beautiful Twin Cities area 
back to where it was.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is some confusion about my 
amendment. I think we have reached an agreement, and we will shortly be 
sending up my amendment No. 2796, as modified. I believe it will be 
accepted on both sides. So we will stand by for that to happen.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. We have been 
working with Senator Inhofe, and we believe we have a modification. As 
soon as that is written up, we hope to get an agreement and move that 
amendment forward.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2811

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2811.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2811.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available under this Act 
 for bicycle paths so that the funds can be used to improve bridge and 
                              road safety)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be spent for bicycle paths or bicycle trails.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, maybe this will not be as painful an 
amendment. Again, referencing what Senator Klobuchar said today about 
repairing the bridge that has collapsed and cost 13 people their lives 
and many others injuries, we decided not to order priorities with the 
last amendment but hopefully will give a little bit better 
consideration to this one.
  About 2\1/2\ weeks ago, a friend of mine, who has been a friend for 
over 20 years, talked me into getting a bicycle. I have to say I have 
markedly enjoyed that exercise. This amendment says that for the $12 
million to $18 million in this bill, which is not clear how much is 
actually for bicycle paths, we should not be spending money on bicycle 
paths for our own leisure, comfort, and exercise when we have bridges 
that are falling down. It is very straightforward. It prohibits funding 
bicycle paths until we have our bridges and highways in order. Through 
the years, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on bicycle 
paths. It is great, it is fun, they are enjoyable, but it isn't as 
important for us to have fun and enjoyment as it is for us to be 
responsible in repairing the roads and bridges in this country. This is 
simply a prohibition that says for the funds that are in this 
appropriations bill for bicycle paths, we are saying, no we won't spend 
that money; we are going to spend the money on fixing roads and 
bridges.
  I guess one could say we could do both. We can fix the roads and 
bridges and we can have bicycle paths. The problem is this body adopted 
an amendment creating another billion dollars for bridges just 
yesterday, and what that does is shorten the life of the trust fund. 
What it does is move the empty, the zero on that fund to 2009. We have 
addressed some of that, but we haven't addressed it near to the need I 
believe we should.
  I ask my colleagues to give some thought about whether bicycle paths 
or the safety of our people in cars on bridges and roads in this 
country is more important.
  I will give some examples. There is $3 million for 3 bike trails in 
Illinois. Illinois has 290 structurally deficient bridges.
  There is $500,000 for the CEMAR Trail in Iowa. Iowa has 61 
structurally deficient bridges.
  There is $500,000 in Maryland. Maryland has 43 structurally deficient 
bridges on the National Highway System.
  Mississippi has $2.2 million earmarked for bicycle trails and has 28 
structurally deficient bridges.
  Missouri has $750,000 for the Heart of America bicycle/pedestrian 
bridge and has 123 structurally deficient bridges on our National 
Highway System.
  North Dakota has $800,000 for the Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail and 
has nine structurally deficient bridges.

[[Page 24160]]

  The State of Washington, the chairman's State, has 3 bike earmarks, 
$3 million, and 76 structurally deficient bridges.
  West Virginia has 98 structurally deficient bridges, but yet $1 
million is going to the Paw Paw Bends Trail in Morgan County.
  That is not the complete list. I can go on. I have 5 more pages of 
States around the country.
  It is interesting that in Chesapeake, VA, the council voted in June 
to build a 2-mile bicycle path estimated to cost $16 million. That is 
to be paid for with federally earmarked funds and a match. The mayor of 
that city, in arguing against this expenditure, cast the lone vote, 
saying: It reminds me of a bridge somewhere to nowhere. You are talking 
about Government spending. To spend that kind of money on a bike path 
that would rarely be utilized is astounding to him. The traffic in that 
area, pedestrian and bike, is 4 people per day.
  I don't deny that it is a wonderful experience that many millions of 
Americans are getting to enjoy the bike paths we build. The question 
is, Should we stop for a while and do what we should be doing with our 
other transportation needs?
  A quote from Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation, is the 
following:

       Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 
     percent of the gas tax money they pay today actually goes 
     into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes to 
     many, many other areas. Ten to 20 percent goes into areas 
     that are not directly transportation related.

  Bike paths and trails happen to fit into that category.
  The highway trust fund was set up to build highways and maintain 
bridges. When 40 percent of it is not used to maintain highways or 
build bridges, we have missed the priorities the American people have 
asked for.
  The last time the gas tax was increased in 1993, it was 4.3 cents. We 
have had many people say we need a tax increase on transportation 
dollars to afford the Transportation bill. I don't believe that is true 
at all. I believe we ought to be spending the money on true 
transportation needs--roads and highways and transit--and we should 
have less of the other.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from 
the Minnesota Star Tribune recently that noted the significant amounts 
of money that have been spent in that State on bicycle paths at the 
same time the chairman of the Transportation Committee did not allocate 
the funds, along with the State, to effectively solve the problems of 
the I-35 bridge.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the Minnesota Star Tribune]

       [Minnesota Congressman Jim] Oberstar played a lead role in 
     crafting the 2005 bill as ranking Democrat on the House 
     Transportation Committee. In the bill, Congress allocated 
     about $4 billion a year for bridge reconstruction and 
     maintenance. It designated about the same amount--about $24 
     billion over a five-year period--for member earmarks in a 
     bipartisan porkfest.
       Ironically, $24 billion is almost exactly the amount that 
     Oberstar now says we must raise through new taxes to prevent 
     future bridge collapses.
       Oberstar's earmarks were among the highest for any member, 
     totaling $250 million. What did they fund?
       Not repair of the I-35W bridge, though the state had 
     identified cracks in the bridge as a major concern in 1999. 
     Oberstar's earmarks, which included many road-related 
     projects, also provided $25 million for Twin Cities bicycle 
     and pedestrian trails and lanes, and such ``high priority'' 
     items as $471,000 for the Edge of Wilderness Discovery Center 
     in Marcell.
       He did slip in $1.5 million for a new bridge in Baxter--for 
     the Paul Bunyan bike trail.
       Oberstar, an avid cyclist, has lavished federal gas-tax 
     dollars on bike trails for years. In 1991, he spearheaded 
     legislation that first allowed Highway Trust Fund monies to 
     flow to state bike trails.
       Now Oberstar, has taken his enthusiasm for bikes a step 
     further. He recently amended a federal aviation law to allow 
     airports to spend federal funds on bike storage facilities.

  Mr. COBURN. I will limit my debate on this amendment and try to come 
back to the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment 
be set aside and that we call up and consider amendments Nos. 2812, 
2813, and 2814, as a block of three amendments, to be debated en bloc 
and then to be voted en bloc. I ask for their consideration to be 
available or time be made available to consider those amendments when I 
have time to come back to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote in 
relation to Coburn amendment No. 2811 occur upon disposition of the 
Cornyn amendment relating to Mexican trucks and that no amendment be in 
order to the Coburn amendment prior to the vote; that there be 2 
minutes for debate prior to a vote with respect to the Coburn 
amendment, with the vote time limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senator from 
Oklahoma is going to come back and debate his amendment that he 
combined. Can he let us know what time he will be back so we can make 
sure we are able to fit in that debate time so we can possibly add the 
votes on those amendments onto the end of the votes we now have 
starting at 7 as well?
  Before the Senator from Missouri speaks, let me say that when the 
Senator from Oklahoma comes back, then we will try to work with him to 
get a time agreement to vote as well at the 7 o'clock time so we can 
have four votes and move expeditiously to finish this bill tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before my friend from Oklahoma leaves, we 
talk a lot about safety. This is one of the problems when we try to 
take a meat ax to all earmarked programs in the States that have been 
worked out. I was working on another amendment, so I didn't hear 
whether he mentioned the $750,000 for the Heart of America Bridge in 
Kansas City. But in the interest of full disclosure, yes, we put in a 
retrofitting of a bridge to provide a barrier-separated crossing for 
bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the Missouri River from north 
Kansas City to downtown Kansas City.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment?
  Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield.


             Amendments Nos. 2812, 2813, and 2814, En Bloc

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I made an error in terms of calling up my 
amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside and that amendments Nos. 2812, 2813, and 2814 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2812, 2813, and 2814, en bloc.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2812

(Purpose: To remove an unnecessary earmark for the International Peace 
                   Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 232.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act may be made available for facility renovation at the 
     International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota; 
     Provided, That the amount made available for grants for the 
     Economic Development Initiative is reduced by $450,000, and 
     the amount made available for the Community Development Fund 
     is reduced by $450,000.

[[Page 24161]]




                           amendment no. 2813

 (Purpose: To ensure that no funds made available under this Act shall 
      be used to carry out any activity relating to the design or 
     construction of the America's Wetland Center in Lake Charles, 
Louisiana, until the date on which the Secretary, in consultation with 
 the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 
  State of Louisiana, certifies to Congress that all residents of the 
State of Louisiana who were displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina 
       or Rita in 2005 are no longer living in temporary housing)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:--
       Sec. ___.  Notwithstanding any other provision of Act, no 
     funds made available under this Act may be used to carry out 
     any activity relating to the design or construction of the 
     America's Wetland Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana, until 
     the date on which the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of 
     Louisiana, certifies to Congress that all residents of the 
     State of Louisiana who were displaced as a result of 
     Hurricane Katrina or Rita in 2005 are no longer living in 
     temporary housing.


                           amendment no. 2814

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the construction of a 
baseball facility in Billings, Montana, and to reduce the amounts made 
  available for the Economic Development Initiative and the Community 
                           Development Fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act--
       (1) none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used for the construction of a new baseball stadium that is 
     replacing Cobb Field in Billings, Montana;
       (2) the amount made available by this Act for grants for 
     the Economic Development Initiative is reduced by $500,000; 
     and
       (3) the amount made available by this Act for the Community 
     Development Fund is reduced by $500,000.


                           Amendment No. 2811

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the reason we put in a barrier on this 
bridge between north Kansas City, a vibrant growing community, and, of 
course, the heart of Kansas City, MO, is that many people cross that 
bridge on foot and on bicycles. The traffic is getting so heavy that 
there is great danger to the pedestrians and bicycle riders. For those 
who like exercise and like conserving energy, many people commute 
between north Kansas City and Kansas City, MO, by foot or on bicycles. 
But for them to continue to do that, they need to be separated from the 
traffic.
  I drive on the streets of Washington, DC, where bicyclists are not 
separated from traffic. It is always with great fear and trepidation as 
I am driving in 2 lanes of traffic coming to work in the morning and I 
see a bicyclist riding down the street between us. I just hope and pray 
that I am not the one who hits that bicyclist and that nobody hits 
them.
  But if we are going to have bicyclists using roadways, please, let's 
put a barrier to separate the bicyclists and the pedestrians from the 
traffic. If we are talking about safety, I believe this is one of the 
easiest points to understand, and that is why I object so strongly to 
saying that any earmark we put in our States that deals with bicycles 
should be struck.
  Where is the sense in this body to tell the people of Kansas City and 
north Kansas City they cannot have a protected pedestrian and bicycle 
means of ingress and egress between north Kansas City and regular 
Kansas City? It makes so much sense that I really hate to bring it up. 
That is what this amendment would do. That is why I will strongly 
oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I join my colleague from Missouri in 
opposing the amendment that has been offered by Senator Coburn. Under 
the SAFETEA-LU authorization bill, that is the surface transportation 
authorization law, the bill that defines all of the transportation 
projects for the country, communities are required to prepare 
comprehensive transportation plans in order to receive Federal highway 
and transit grants. Those plans have to include the communities' plans 
for bike and pedestrian pathways. We set that policy because these 
plans are meant to be comprehensive, and our national policy has been 
to recognize bike and pedestrian pathways as one component of an 
entire, complete transportation system. They can't constitute the 
largest part of the system, but a plan that ignores that element is not 
complete.
  Now, there are 3 reasons our national transportation policy has 
recognized the role of bike and pedestrian paths in the role of 
transportation authorization. There is safety, there is mobility, and 
there is our healthy communities about which we are all concerned. When 
we put in adequate bike paths and walkways, what we are essentially 
doing in many of our communities is protecting the safety of our 
families and our neighbors. In many of our communities, without those 
paths, many more bicyclists and pedestrians would be forced to commute 
with regular vehicle traffic.
  Everyone on bicycle or on foot is vulnerable when they are mixed in 
with heavy traffic. But I contend our school-aged children are often 
the ones who are the most vulnerable, and that is why it is extremely 
important that we protect these kinds of pathways in our transportation 
bills.
  When we put in place these bike paths and walkways, we also provide 
essential mobility to a lot of people who can't afford to drive a car, 
who don't have a car, or for disability reasons can't drive a car. 
These are people who sometimes can't afford the daily travel by car, 
but they have their bike. They might like to travel by bus or a transit 
vehicle, but perhaps there aren't any available and so they are on our 
bikeways, bike paths, and walkways, and they need a mode of 
transportation within our communities as well.
  It wasn't very long ago I happened to read an article in the 
Washington Post about informal bike and pedestrian paths showing up all 
over northern Virginia. These are just foot paths now, apparently, and 
not much more than grassy areas where commuters come and go on a daily 
basis. From the story, it said most of the people walking along these 
paths can't afford to commute by train or by car. They are walking to 
their jobs every day. These jobs don't pay a lot. These families need 
to get to work to support their families, and so they are walking on 
these pathways all over northern Virginia, the story tells us. The 
unfortunate part of that story, as I read it, is that these bike and 
pathways crossed over four lanes of traffic, many times without any 
traffic signals to accommodate them. So those commuters who are walking 
on these paths scrambled every day to get across four lanes of traffic 
because the transportation system didn't protect them as bicyclists or 
as pedestrians.
  So mobility is important and safety is important. But, finally, we 
all recognize that having healthy communities is an important part of 
our country today. In recent years, we have all become aware of how our 
physical infrastructure affects our daily lives, and too often people 
find themselves trapped in cars by a transportation network that will 
not allow them to walk or bike to work, which can be an important part 
of an exercise regime for many who choose that. So these bike paths and 
walkways provide an alternative to cars and help make our communities 
more healthy and more like neighborhoods.
  When the Senate passed the last Transportation authorization bill, 
the so-called SAFETEA-LU, that bill recognized that bike and pedestrian 
pathways were one component of a complete transportation system for our 
communities. The President signed that bill into law. Today, if we 
choose to pick out this one mode of transportation and say we are not 
going to have bike paths or walkways, that we are excluding that from 
transportation funding, we would be making, on the floor of the Senate 
today and in the Transportation appropriations bill, a major shift in 
our transportation policy.
  So I hope our colleagues will take a serious look at this amendment 
and realize that it will affect the safety of many of our citizens who 
commute to work, to school, and those who, in their daily lives, don't 
have a car or who

[[Page 24162]]

choose to walk for their own personal health or ride a bike for their 
own personal health.
  I hope the Senator from Oklahoma will wait to have this discussion 
when we are back on the floor during the reauthorization bill, which 
will be occurring during the next couple of years, and he will then 
have an opportunity to make his arguments at that time during the 
surface transportation debate. But today we are not considering an 
authorization bill. We are considering a transportation appropriations 
bill. And, yes, it does include an alternative for many people in this 
country, which is part of their transportation. It is part of their 
commute to work or to school or their daily lives, and it is an 
essential part of this bill.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Coburn amendment, and we 
will be having that vote certainly after 7 o'clock.


                    Amendment No. 2796, as Modified

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the current amendment 
aside and call up amendment No. 2796 and send a modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 147, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 414.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
     transfer the design and development functions of the FAA 
     Academy in their entirety or to implement the Air Traffic 
     Control Optimum Training Solution proposed by the 
     Administrator in its entirety prior to September 30, 2008.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe there is no further debate on 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2796), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I see the Senator from Montana is on 
the floor at this time and wishes to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I have a question for the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  I have a statement that applies to servicemen going off to war in 
Iraq from the State of Montana, which does not apply to this bill. It 
is a statement I want to make as in morning business. If the Senator 
from Oklahoma has something applicable to this bill and he is time 
sensitive, I would defer to him, if he wishes.
  Mr. INHOFE. No. I would respond to the Senator from Montana that we 
just adopted my amendment, as modified, and that is the reason I was on 
the Senate floor at this time.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, first of all, I have a few comments to make about 
the bill. I thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from 
Washington for their great work on this bill. I would hope that the 
Senate would pass this bill as it is because I think it is a good piece 
of legislation that fits the needs of our country very well.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Tester are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2797

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I want to speak for a moment about the 
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota relating to the cross-border 
trucking demonstration program. That is the long title for the pilot 
project to allow U.S. trucks to travel into Mexico carrying cargo and 
to allow a certain number of Mexican trucks, after inspection, to 
travel into the United States carrying products for delivery here. This 
program has actually been planned over the past 14 years, but the 
Senator from North Dakota has an amendment that would deny the entry of 
Mexican trucks into the United States on the grounds that the trucks 
participating in this program do not meet the same safety standards as 
U.S. trucks and, therefore, would be unfit for U.S. roads. If that were 
true, I would agree. But it is not true. I very much understand the 
Senate's role in protecting the safety and security of people on our 
highways, protecting the American public. But in my view, the Dorgan 
amendment ignores the numerous safety and inspection standards which 
are set in place by the Department of Transportation under this 
demonstration program. In fact, the whole point of the demonstration 
program is to show that a safe regime for cross-border trucking can 
exist in a way that benefits both Mexico and the United States.
  First, let me emphasize the minor impact the Mexican trucks will 
actually have on our U.S. highway system. The Department of 
Transportation authorized a maximum of 100 Mexican trucking companies 
to participate in the 1-year demonstration program, the same number of 
U.S. trucking companies that would be allowed to participate in Mexico. 
Preliminary information indicates there will be approximately 500 to 
600 vehicles involved. According to statistics released by the National 
Trucking Association, 5.1 million commercial trailers were registered 
in 2004 for business purposes here in the United States. Clearly, the 
500 to 600 Mexican trucks compared to 5.1 million American trucks is a 
pretty miniscule number compared to our trucking industry as a whole.
  As I mentioned, proponents of the Dorgan amendment claim that Mexican 
trucks are too dangerous for U.S. roads. However, Mexican trucking 
company drivers and vehicles participating in this demonstration 
program must overcome multiple layers of safety and inspection 
standards before operating in the United States. Let me describe in 
detail the mandates the Mexican companies must meet to qualify for this 
demonstration program.
  The first layer of safety is an application process whereby any 
trucking company that wishes to participate in the demonstration 
program must complete a 38-page application dealing with business 
activities, cargo content, safety records, safety rules, and other 
required information. If a Mexican trucking company fails to meet any 
of those DOT standards, the application is denied. The next layer of 
safety and inspection standards is a preauthorization safety audit. 
This measure mandates that U.S. Federal inspectors must conduct a 
thorough safety audit of each Mexican trucking company business at the 
carrier's headquarters in Mexico before it is granted authority to 
operate beyond U.S. border commercial zones. So U.S. inspectors will be 
at the Mexican trucking company site in Mexico performing this 
inspection, not only of the vehicles but of the entire operation. That 
is a major inspection. It seems to me it is a major way that we 
preliminarily qualify these Mexican companies for operation here.
  Our inspectors must verify that the Mexican companies are complying 
with the following U.S. standards: U.S. hours of service regulations, 
drug and alcohol testing for each driver--these are completed by U.S. 
labs, by the way--insurance with a U.S. insurance company--so this 
business of not being insured in the United States is not correct--
adequate driver qualifications, and a vehicle maintenance program. If 
the company passes the compliance test, then the inspectors conduct a 
full front-to-back review of each truck, which takes 45 minutes per 
vehicle, and they interview every driver who will

[[Page 24163]]

participate in the program. These are U.S. inspectors in Mexico at the 
company site.
  They then do a 45-minute inspection of the trucks, and they have to 
meet the same safety standards as U.S. trucks traveling on our 
highways. If the company passes the preauthorization safety audit, each 
truck is then given a safety decal and that decal is only valid for 90 
days. So each truck will have to undergo a bumper-to-bumper inspection 
every 3 months. Each truck is also given a unique decal. Every time the 
truck crosses the border, Department of Transportation inspectors at 
the border look for that decal. They verify that the driver is the one 
the company has certified for that truck, and they check English 
language proficiency and licensing requirements. They do all of that at 
the border.
  Finally, every vehicle and driver participating in the project will 
be subject to roadside inspections, just as U.S. and Canadian drivers 
are. If at any point a Mexican truck fails to comply with just one of 
the safety requirements, the truck and the driver will be placed out of 
service immediately. The Mexican trucking company will then be subject 
to disciplinary action. All of these safety and inspection standards 
ensure that Mexican trucking companies, vehicles, and drivers 
participating in the demonstration program abide by the same or, in 
some cases, even stricter safety standards than U.S. and Canadian 
trucking companies, drivers, and vehicles operating in the United 
States.
  Clearly, the Department of Transportation has worked hard to develop 
safety and inspection standards designed and intended to protect 
American highways and the public. It is for that reason that we should 
not support the Dorgan amendment.
  Remember, this is a pilot project, a demonstration project. To ensure 
that its results are adequately reported to us and that the Department 
of Transportation makes no changes without notifying the Congress, 
Senator Cornyn has offered an amendment that will add those additional 
precautions. Of course, those are worthwhile and I will support that. 
The bottom line is, those people who fear that Mexican trucks will not 
be held to the same safety standards as U.S. trucks in America are 
incorrect. They will receive the two inspections in Mexico, another 
inspection at the border, and the potential for an inspection anywhere 
else on the highways, just as American trucks. Those inspections are 
performed by U.S. inspectors.
  It is worth giving this program a chance--a demonstration program 
only--to see whether it will work. If it turns out it is too much 
trouble and expense, it doesn't work, the Mexican drivers are not 
qualified, the trucks don't meet the standards, whatever else, then we 
can adjust our program. But let's give the demonstration project a 
chance to also show that maybe our neighbors to the South deem it 
important enough for their vehicles to travel in the United States for 
their own commercial purposes that they care about this program and 
they are going to make it work. If they do, it is much more efficient 
and much cheaper for American consumers, if those Mexican trucks can 
travel in the United States, because the alternative is to offload the 
cargo in Mexico, reload it onto an American vehicle, and then have it 
come into the United States, a very lengthy, time-consuming, and costly 
process.
  The United States has always been a trading nation. It is our 
history. Americans have benefited throughout the centuries because we 
have been a trading nation. Our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, like to 
buy American products. They have things to sell to American consumers. 
Some of the finest tomatoes we are eating right now come through the 
port of entry in Nogales, AZ. I see the trucks lined up every time I go 
down there. They are great products. Because they come in, they are 
fresher, less expensive, and they can be even more fresh and less 
expensive if they don't have to offload the cargo and reload it onto 
American carriers to be transported to final destination.
  This is a way of demonstrating that we can make our commerce more 
efficient and less costly and speed products to market, if the Mexicans 
will do their part and verify that their vehicles are safe on American 
highways. Why not give them the chance? That is all this demonstration 
project does.
  To those who say: We don't think they will meet our standards, this 
is the time to tell. I think it would be unfair to American consumers 
if we try to prejudge that and say there is no way it can work so we 
are not even going to give it a chance. We should give it a chance. 
Then we can evaluate it. Then we can make our decision. In the 
meantime, the Department of Transportation inspection demonstration 
project should go forward. The Dorgan amendment should be defeated. The 
Cornyn amendment should be adopted.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2814

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
an amendment Senator Coburn is going to be offering in a few minutes. I 
rise today to say a few words about a construction project this 
amendment is potentially eliminating. It is a construction project that 
is generating a lot of excitement and community pride in my home State 
of Montana.
  While campaigning for this Senate seat this time last year, I 
repeatedly said I support appropriations for projects that improve our 
Nation's infrastructure--projects such as safer bridges, better water 
canals, better highways, and improvements to our Nation's economic 
development. That is why I am following this project in Billings, MT, 
very closely. The project is a major effort by the people of Billings 
to reinvigorate their city's economy by rebuilding a well-known 
landmark--Cobb Field. Right now, crews are already working on the new 
stadium. Once finished, it will serve as a venue for sports, concerts, 
and art fairs throughout the year. It will attract visitors from all 
over the region.
  The people of Billings are very proud of Cobb Field and the role it 
plays in their community. That is why they voted to raise their own 
taxes by over $10 million to rebuild this stadium. They understand how 
important it is to be proud of a place where they can gather as 
families, host visitors, and enjoy American pastimes.
  The people of Billings also understand that the new Cobb Field will 
be a major economic boost. It will be an asset to the entire region. 
That is why I have requested the Senate invest $500,000 in this 
project. Believe me, it will go a long way in Billings--a community 
that has already done its part.
  I believe this is a pretty darn reasonable request. The community 
development fund in this appropriations bill specifically sets aside 
money for projects that boost economies in cities such as Billings. 
What is the community development fund for if it is not for good 
community development projects such as this?
  I am asking my colleagues not to remove any Federal funding in this 
community project. Instead, I stand before you to ask for a small 
investment in economic development for a growing community to provide 
jobs, tourism, and overall economic growth.
  While running for this Senate seat, I criticized Congress for 
sneaking in projects in the dead of night, attaching them to spending 
bills behind closed doors without any accountability. It happened a lot 
more often than most people think. Our Government spent a lot of money 
without properly vetting it through Congress.
  For the better, times have changed. I stand before you today to 
vigorously defend why I requested this funding project in the light of 
day. I am going to bat for it because Cobb Field deserves the funding. 
There are no secrets here, there is no waste--just a

[[Page 24164]]

good, worthwhile community project that will only make a very special 
place in my home State even better.
  I am not going to let Cobb Field strike out. It is too much of an 
investment by Montana folks who work hard and raise families. They are 
taking it upon themselves to make their home better, and I will do 
everything I can to help.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2832

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, shortly, I hope we will be able to clear my 
amendment No. 2832, which deals with mitigation assistance to eliminate 
the default and foreclosure of mortgages of owner-occupied single 
family homes. As we all know, the subprime market collapse has caused 
great distress in the marketplace and in many of the entities that are 
engaged in issuing these subprime loans, and others, including hedge 
funds, which were dealing in the secondary market with them.
  I am not so much concerned if large institutions made bad gambles. We 
don't want to engage in the moral hazard of bailing out large financial 
institutions that get out too far on the fringe and find out that 
interest rates rise and they can't make the profits they thought. But 
we are very much concerned about the individual homeowners who may find 
that this subprime crisis is costing them their housing.
  Therefore, this amendment we propose would take $100 million from the 
HOME program within HUD to allow for foreclosure mitigation activities. 
The amount would go to organizations such as FHA, Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, and State Housing Finance agencies to help 
identify foreclosure alternatives and offer some homeowners, 
specifically in subprime mortgages, an alternative to the prospect of 
foreclosure.
  Recently published data from the Mortgage Bankers Association for the 
second quarter of this year shows that one in seven U.S. homeowners was 
delinquent in their payments. Delinquencies in general rose to the 
highest levels since 2002, to 5.1 percent of all mortgages, not just 
subprime. These estimates also show that more than 600,000 homeowners 
are facing the prospect of foreclosure and repossession.
  These numbers are the tip of the iceberg. Action needs to be taken to 
ensure that where possible, good borrowers who happen to be in the 
subprime category are not unfairly hurt by the housing downturn facing 
this Nation. While price corrections are natural, and perhaps needed in 
some markets today to balance against speculation and overt risk-
taking, rapid rates of foreclosures will only build additional 
inventory in an already flush housing market and may lead to an 
overcorrection and a true recession in the housing market. Depending on 
the severity of the housing downturn, this could create a major drag on 
other aspects of our economy and pull us into a recession.
  However, we should not be quick to attempt to bail out or otherwise 
create moral hazard in the mortgage markets. This amendment, therefore, 
seeks to build cooperation between entities and the Federal Government 
needed in the future in terms of preventing foreclosures and preventing 
a truly catastrophic mortgage crisis. I strongly believe this is a good 
step forward to help stem the tide of foreclosures without bailing out 
risky lenders and speculators from the market. I urge my colleagues to 
accept this amendment.
  I would also note that sometimes people who have limited incomes may 
not be in a position to buy a home but may be better off renting. I 
have been in rental housing in my lifetime, as many of us have been. I 
think the recent efforts by the administration to push for home 
ownership without regard, in too many instances, to the ability of the 
homeowners to meet the payments is pushing the envelope too far. Some 
of the no-downpayment schemes that have been offered have put not only 
homeowners at risk but whole neighborhoods at risk, where one or two 
foreclosures may totally cripple a vulnerable, but otherwise healthy, 
housing neighborhood.
  So we need to take a look carefully at the subprime market. We also 
need to look at those practices which unnecessarily put at risk 
families of modest income who may not be able to take on the 
responsibilities and the financial burdens of home owning but would be 
better off renting.
  So with that, I yield the floor, and I look forward to hearing our 
colleagues talk about Mexican trucks.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2800, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2800.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2800.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified 
as presented to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to 
 treat certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the 
              community development block grant programs)

       On page 137, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 232.  Paragraph (4) of section 102(a) of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, with 
     respect to any fiscal year beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this sentence, the cities of Alton and Granite 
     City, Illinois, may be considered metropolitan cities for 
     purposes of this title.''.


       Amendments Nos. 2832; 2800, as Modified; and 2845 En Bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and that the following three amendments be 
considered en bloc: amendments Nos. 2832; 2800, as modified; and 2845.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, these en bloc amendments have been 
cleared on both sides. I know of no other debate.
  Mr. BOND. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendment (No. 2800), as modified, was agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 2832 and 2845) were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2832

   (Purpose: To establish mitigation activities and alternatives to 
mortgage foreclosure when viable and to reasonably ensure the long-term 
      affordability of any mortgage assisted under this amendment)

       On page 95, after the period at the end of line 25, begin 
     with the following new paragraph:
       Of the overall funds made available for this account, up to 
     $100,000,000 may be made available for mortgage foreclosure 
     mitigation activities, under the following terms and 
     conditions:
       (1) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     (``Secretary, ``the Department'') is authorized to provide, 
     or contract with public, private or nonprofit entities 
     (including the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation and 
     Housing Finance Agencies) to make awards (with up to a 25 
     percent match by an entity of the amount made available to 
     such entity) (except for the match, some or all of the award 
     may be repayable by the contractor to the Secretary, upon 
     terms determined by the Secretary) to provide mitigation 
     assistance to eliminate the default and foreclosure of 
     mortgages of owner-occupied single-family homes that are at 
     risk of such foreclosure, including mortgages known as 
     subprime mortgages;

[[Page 24165]]

       (2) These loss mitigation activities shall only be made 
     available to homebuyers with mortgages in default or in 
     danger of default where such activities are likely to ensure 
     the long-term affordability of any mortgage retained pursuant 
     to such activity; No Federal funds made available under this 
     paragraph may be provided directly to lenders or homeowners 
     for foreclosure mitigation assistance. An entity may use its 
     own funds (including its match contribution) for foreclosure 
     mitigation assistance subject to repayment requirements and 
     the regulations issued by the Secretary;
       (3) Loss mitigation activities shall involve a reasonable 
     analysis of the borrower's financial situation, an evaluation 
     of the current value of the property that is subject to the 
     mortgage, the possible purchase of the mortgage, refinancing 
     opportunities or the approval of a work-out strategy by all 
     interested parties, and an assessment of the feasibility of 
     the following measures, including:
       (I) waiver of any late payment change or, as applicable, 
     penalty interest;
       (II) forbearance pursuant to the written agreement between 
     the borrower and servicer providing for a temporary reduction 
     in monthly payments followed by a reamortization and new 
     payment schedule that includes any arrearage;
       (III) waiver, modification, or variation of any term of a 
     mortgage, including modifications that changes the mortgage 
     rate, including the possible elimination of the adjustable 
     rate mortgage requirements, forgiving the payment of 
     principal and interest, extending the final maturity rate of 
     such mortgage, or beginning to include an escrow for taxes 
     and insurance;
       (IV) acceptance of payment from the homebuyer of an amount 
     less than the stated principal balance in financial 
     satisfaction of such mortgage;
       (V) assumption;
       (VI) pre-foreclosure sale;
       (VII) deed in lieu of foreclosure; and
       (VIII) such other measures, or combination of measures, to 
     make the mortgage both feasible and reasonable to ensure the 
     long-term affordability of any mortgage retained pursuant to 
     such activity.
       (4) Activities described in subclasses (V) (VI) (VII) shall 
     be only pursued after a reasonable evaluation of the 
     feasibility of the activities described in subclasses (I), 
     (II), (IlI), (IV) and (VIII), based on the homeowner's 
     circumstances.
       (5) The Secretary shall develop a listing of mortgage 
     foreclosure mitigation entities with which it has agreements 
     as well as a listing of counseling centers approved by the 
     Secretary, with the understanding that an eligible mortgage 
     foreclosure mitigation entity may also operate as a 
     counseling center.
       (6) Any mitigation funds recovered by the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development shall be revolved back into the 
     overall mitigation fund or for other counseling activities, 
     maintained by the Department and revolved back into 
     mitigation and counseling activities
       (7) The Department shall report annually to the Congress on 
     its efforts to mitigate mortgage default. Such report shall 
     identify all methods of success and housing preserved and 
     shall include all recommended efforts that will or likely can 
     assist in the success of this program.


                           amendment no. 2845

  (Purpose: To permit pilots to serve in multicrew covered operations 
                    until attaining 65 years of age)

       On page 16, beginning with line 8, strike through line 2 on 
     page 18, and insert the following:

     SEC. 115. MULTICREW COVERED OPERATIONS SERVICE BY OLDER 
                   PILOTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 44729. Age standards for pilots

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to the limitation in subsection 
     (c), a pilot may serve in multicrew covered operations until 
     attaining 65 years of age.
       ``(b) Covered Operations Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `covered operations' means operations under part 121 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(c) Limitation for International Flights.--
       ``(1) Applicability of icao standard.--A pilot who has 
     attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in 
     covered operations between the United States and another 
     country only if there is another pilot in the flight deck 
     crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.
       ``(2) Sunset of limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
     be effective on such date as the Convention on International 
     Civil Aviation provides that a pilot who has attained 60 
     years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in international 
     commercial operations without regard to whether there is 
     another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not attained 
     age 60.
       ``(d) Sunset of Age-60 Retirement Rule.--On and after the 
     date of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, 
     section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     shall cease to be effective.
       ``(e) Applicability.--
       ``(1) Nonretroactivity.--No person who has attained 60 
     years of age before the date of enactment of the 
     Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 may serve as a pilot for an 
     air carrier engaged in covered operations unless--
       ``(A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier 
     in such operations on such date of enactment as a required 
     flight deck crew member; or
       ``(B) such person is newly hired by an air carrier as a 
     pilot on or after such date of enactment without credit for 
     prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other 
     terms related to length of service prior to the date of 
     rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of 
     the air carrier.
       ``(2) Protection for compliance.--An action taken in 
     conformance with this section, taken in conformance with a 
     regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior 
     to the date of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2008 in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (as in effect before such date of 
     enactment), may not serve as a basis for liability or relief 
     in a proceeding, brought under any employment law or 
     regulation, before any court or agency of the United States 
     or of any State or locality.
       ``(f) Amendments to Labor Agreements and Benefit Plans.--
     Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air 
     carrier that is required to conform with the requirements of 
     this section or a regulation issued to carry out this 
     section, and is applicable to pilots represented for 
     collective bargaining, shall be made by agreement of the air 
     carrier and the designated bargaining representative of the 
     pilots of the air carrier.
       ``(g) Medical Standards and Records.--
       ``(1) Medical examinations and standards.--Except as 
     provided by paragraph (2), a person serving as a pilot for an 
     air carrier engaged in covered operations shall not be 
     subject to different medical standards, or different, 
     greater, or more frequent medical examinations, on account of 
     age unless the Secretary determines (based on data received 
     or studies published after the date of enactment of the 
     Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008) that different medical 
     standards, or different, greater, or more frequent medical 
     examinations, are needed to ensure an adequate level of 
     safety in flight.
       ``(2) Duration of first-class medical certificate.--No 
     person who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot 
     of an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless the 
     person has a first-class medical certificate. Such a 
     certificate shall expire on the last day of the 6-month 
     period following the date of examination shown on the 
     certificate.
       ``(h) Safety.--
       ``(1) Training.--Each air carrier engaged in covered 
     operations shall continue to use pilot training and 
     qualification programs approved by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, with specific emphasis on initial and 
     recurrent training and qualification of pilots who have 
     attained 60 years of age, to ensure continued acceptable 
     levels of pilot skill and judgment.
       ``(2) Line evaluations.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, 
     and every 6 months thereafter, an air carrier engaged in 
     covered operations shall evaluate the performance of each 
     pilot of the air carrier who has attained 60 years of age 
     through a line check of such pilot. Notwithstanding the 
     preceding sentence, an air carrier shall not be required to 
     conduct for a 6-month period a line check under this 
     paragraph of a pilot serving as second-in-command if the 
     pilot has undergone a regularly scheduled simulator 
     evaluation during that period.
       ``(3) GAO report.--Not later than 24 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, 
     the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report concerning the effect, 
     if any, on aviation safety of the modification to pilot age 
     standards made by subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     447 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``44729. Age standards for pilots''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
just used be equally divided from both sides between now and the hour 
of 7 o'clock. I remind all of our colleagues that at 7 o'clock we will 
be having three votes on the amendments that are pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 24166]]


  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I could inquire of the Senator from 
Washington, my understanding is that from 6 to 7, there was to be 
debate on the two amendments, Senator Cornyn's amendment and my 
amendment, which will then be voted on as side-by-side amendments at 7 
o'clock, and that I would be allotted half the time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. So let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak for 5 minutes on the Coburn amendment that I believe he has 
spoken about already dealing with the Peace Garden outside of that 
block of time, and following that 5-minute presentation, the remaining 
time would be split between myself and Senator Cornyn or his designee. 
I am not asking that the vote be extended; I am just saying that 
between now and 7 we are splitting the time with respect to the truck 
amendments.
  If I have 25 minutes, that is fine.
  Might I ask with respect to the Peace Garden amendment, will there be 
2 minutes on each side prior to the vote on that amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me let the Senator know that between 
votes we will have time for the Senators to discuss the amendments.


                           Amendment No. 2797

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this issue of Mexican long-haul trucking 
into this country is an important issue, and I have offered an 
amendment that is very simple. It is an amendment that is supported by 
a number of groups: The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens 
for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Public 
Citizen, the National Farmers Union, the Teamsters, the Transportation 
Trade Department of the AFL-CIO.
  In a newspaper article this morning, the American Trucking 
Association, which represents the trucking business, and which, by the 
way, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, said today it 
has ``grave concerns'' about the Mexican trucking pilot project.
  Here is the story: We passed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. I didn't vote for it. It was a horrible trade agreement, and 
it has demonstrated over the years to be a trade agreement that does 
not represent our country's interests. We turned a very small trade 
surplus with Mexico into a huge trade deficit. But aside from that, in 
the passage of NAFTA, it was to harmonize at some point in the future 
the ability to do long-haul trucking across Canada, the United States, 
and Mexico, but it was never anticipated that it would start in 
circumstances where there were not equivalent standards and/or 
enforcement with respect to safety.
  So I have very strong concerns because I don't think there is any 
evidence presented anywhere in this Chamber during this debate that we 
have equivalent standards and enforcement with respect to safety, and 
therefore I don't believe we ought to allow, at this point, the pilot 
project to go forward that will have long-haul Mexican trucks coming 
into this country now.
  Now, let me describe a couple of things. First of all, it is 
coincidental, perhaps, but yesterday, a great tragedy occurred in 
Mexico, and I will describe it with this story that I saw yesterday 
morning. A terrible truck accident occurred where 37 people were 
killed; 150 people were injured in the blast. It left a crater of up to 
65 feet, and that was because one of the trucks was hauling explosives 
in Mexico. This is a great tragedy, this accident; so many people were 
killed. Here is the crater in the road in Mexico. One of the trucks was 
carrying explosives. This was in a mining area.
  According to newspaper reports, the driver of the truck that was 
carrying the dynamite was trying to overtake another truck carrying 25 
tons of explosives in a trailer. The chief of police in the State where 
the accident took place said the truck was not equipped to carry 
explosives. The driver of the truck that was carrying the explosives 
fled the scene, and the bishop of the Catholic diocese in the area, the 
capital of the border State where the crash happened said:

       It's not possible to understand how a truck with 25 tons of 
     explosives could drive on the highway with no type of 
     protection.

  Now, we know what would happen in this country if you were driving a 
truck with explosives on board. We have safety requirements that are 
stringently enforced. You have to have vehicles in front and vehicles 
behind and proper signage. That was not the case yesterday in Mexico. I 
am not suggesting that is a circumstance which would exist in this 
country, but I am saying we don't have equivalent standards between 
this country and Mexico--not yet. Some day, when they exist, I will not 
complain about a pilot project, but today I will complain about it 
because those equivalent standards don't exist.
  Mr. President, the inspector general's report described the 
following. I mention that report because last Thursday, at 7:30 in the 
evening, the IG issued a report. The report was required because of an 
amendment I offered, and others, that said the Department of 
Transportation cannot move to begin a pilot project of having long-haul 
Mexican trucks come into this country until the IG has done a report. 
The IG did a report, and at 8:30 the Department of Transportation, 1 
hour later that evening--apparently they had taken a speed-reading 
course--decided it was going to implement the pilot project right then.
  Here is what the IG report says:

       While the DOT officials inspecting Mexican trucking 
     companies took steps to verify onsite data, we noted that 
     certain information was not available to them. Specifically, 
     information pertaining to vehicle inspections, accident 
     reports, and driver violations maintained by Mexican 
     authorities . . .

  What does that mean? It means the most important information by which 
you would judge whether we ought to allow long-haul trucks to come into 
this country from Mexico is not available. They go on to say that they 
were able to get some if they were able to obtain it from the company's 
records by the generosity of the company. But no data bank was 
available. The information wasn't available. They were not able to get 
information about vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver 
violations. I am sorry, that is the ball game, as far as I am 
concerned.
  This is about safety. We developed standards in this country to 
provide basic safety for the American people. If you want to obliterate 
those standards, go ahead, but it won't be with my support and vote. 
The Department of Transportation is making a mistake, in my judgment. I 
mentioned the three areas that we are taking on faith because we could 
not get the information, and there is no such data bank. Does that make 
you feel comfortable? It doesn't me.
  There are a whole series of questions and problems raised in the IG's 
report. Yet we are told that we have enough information, let's just 
proceed. I don't think it is wise to proceed.
  My colleague from Texas is going to offer an amendment that will say: 
No, no, let's let this proceed and see what happens. My colleague from 
Arizona said let's go ahead and try this and see what happens. We are 
going to see what happens? No, no. In my judgment, we ought to certify 
the ability to have long-haul trucking coming from Mexico into this 
country when we have decided there is safety for American drivers and 
safety on American roads and that we have been able to determine that 
equivalent enforcement and equivalent standards exist. That is not now 
the case. The IG's report demonstrates that. So I don't understand the 
rush. What is the requirement for speed and why the urgency? Why not 
stand up for the standards we have created in this country?
  If I might, I believe I have a copy of the IG's report. I will read 
something else. On page 2, it says that the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration, which is part of the Department of 
Transportation, agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every 
time. They are saying: No, it is going to be fine; we are going to 
check every truck coming across the border every time. But they say 
that as of July 2007, no coordinated, site-specific plans to carry out 
such checks were in place.

[[Page 24167]]

They say they would have the plans by August 22, 2007, but we have not 
received any outlines or any completed plans.
  They say this:

       In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed 
     and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project 
     will increase the risk that project participants will be able 
     to avoid the required checks.

  Once again, they say that we will check every truck every time. The 
IG says that the way it works is we now have a greater risk and they 
will be able to avoid the required checks. That is not from me, it is 
from the IG's report.
  So I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Specter an amendment--
bipartisan, with a good many cosponsors--that says let's stop this 
pilot program. It should not have been initiated last Thursday. The 
House of Representatives already voted to do so by voice vote. The 
House has done this already. I hope the Senate will do the same this 
evening.
  My colleague will offer an amendment that sounds as if it is wrapped 
in a bouquet of flowers. The very last sentence says: Let's fund this 
project. So we can skip the preamble and say: Do you want to fund this 
project or not? Do you believe we ought to have long-haul trucks from 
Mexico under these circumstances at this time or don't you? If you 
believe we are not ready, that there is not and will not be at this 
point equivalent standards and enforcement and, therefore, assured 
safety for the American people, if you believe that--and I think the 
evidence is clear--then you vote for the amendment I have offered with 
Senator Specter and others. If you believe we should proceed with this 
long-haul Mexican trucking coming into our country at this moment, then 
vote with Senator Cornyn and his amendment.
  I hope most Members of the Senate will reject what a colleague of 
mine said last evening. This amendment is just making Mexico a 
bogeyman, I think is what he described. This is much more serious than 
that. There will be people driving up to 4-way stop signs in this 
country or driving down a 2-lane or 4-lane road in this country next to 
an 18-wheeler, and the American people want to know whether that has an 
equivalent inspection to what we have. Do they have logbooks and 
records, and are they obligating themselves to the same requirements as 
this country? The answer, quite clearly, in my judgment, looking at 
what the IG has said, is that there is nobody in this Chamber who can 
give that assurance, and if that is given, it is given without any 
documentation at all.
  I have other things to say. I want others to proceed to make their 
case. I hope to be able to close the debate this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful for Members of 
the Senate to recount the history of this pilot program because it 
demonstrates that this pilot program was adopted as part of the treaty 
obligations of the United States, dating back to 1993. I know that 
seems like a long time ago. It was certainly long before I got in the 
Congress. But I do believe this is relevant to the debate.
  Of course, in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, 
was adopted. But, relevant to this amendment, it had the requirement 
that signatory countries--in other words, Canada, Mexico, and the 
United States--are to give each other access to each other's long-haul 
commercial trucks. There was initially a refusal to enact the provision 
with regard to Mexican trucks, and in 1995 Mexican trucks were to have 
been given full access to four U.S. border States.
  In 2000, under NAFTA, this 1993 treaty obligation, Mexican trucks 
would have been given full access throughout the United States.
  In 2001, this matter was taken to a NAFTA arbitration panel, which 
ruled that the United States is in violation of its commitments under 
NAFTA and must open up its highways to Mexican trucks.
  In 2001, Congress passes the 2002 Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill, which set 22 safety-related preconditions for 
opening the border to long-haul Mexican trucks.
  In 2002, the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, announced 
that all of the preconditions--those 22 safety preconditions--had been 
met and directed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to act 
on the Mexican application.
  In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delayed implementation of 
this provision. But then, in June of 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court 
reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and ruled that Mexican 
trucks could operate in the United States pursuant to the 1993 NAFTA 
treaty.
  In 2007, the administration announced a pilot project to grant 
Mexican trucks from 100 transportation companies full access to U.S. 
highways.
  In May 2007, the Iraq war supplemental mandates that any pilot 
program to give Mexican trucks access beyond the border region cannot 
begin until U.S. trucks have similar access to Mexico and requires a 
report of the Office of the IG.
  In September 2007, the Office of the IG issued its report. The next 
day, the administration issued its first permit to enter the United 
States under the program.
  I wish to address the concerns many of my constituents have addressed 
to me regarding the Mexican truck demonstration program because I think 
we ought to be guided by the facts and not solely by fear. I 
understand, however, the fear people have of unsafe trucks coming into 
the United States. Frankly, I would not for a moment tolerate that, nor 
do I believe would any Member of the Congress. I firmly believe the 
American people must have confidence that their family's safety is not 
endangered by any truck, whether it be Mexican, American, or Canadian.
  As my colleagues know, as I have just recounted, the United States is 
under a treaty obligation through NAFTA to open our interior to long-
haul trucks from Canada and Mexico, just as they are required to open 
their highways to American truckers. I believe we should live up to our 
treaty obligations, and I say that even if I don't necessarily agree 
with them because they are, as a matter of fact, the law of the land, 
and whether I agree with it or the Senator from North Dakota agrees 
with it, once the matter is adopted as a treaty obligation of the 
United States, it is litigated not only by the NAFTA arbitration panel 
but by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, 
and I think his opinion or mine about whether it is something we prefer 
to happen becomes pretty much a moot point if we are to be a nation of 
laws and respect the judgments of the courts, even if we don't happen 
to like it.
  I do believe we have a high obligation, however, to ensure that the 
trucks on our roads live up to the high standards of safety the 
American people demand. So I think it is important for people to 
understand what this demonstration program entails because there has 
been misinformation about it.
  Under this program, 100 precertified Mexican trucking companies would 
be able to expand operations beyond the U.S. border zones. At the same 
time--and this is an important part of the deal--100 U.S. trucking 
companies would be allowed to operate in Mexico. This is not a one-way 
street; it is a two-way street when it comes to international trade and 
commerce. As required by Congress, Mexican trucks must have a U.S.-
based insurance policy, must comply fully with hours of service 
regulations, must maintain vehicles to U.S. carrier standards, and 
drivers must be able to communicate in English so they can understand 
the instructions of law enforcement and other safety personnel. They 
must also pass drug and alcohol testing requirements.
  Many of the safety provisions included in the program the Department 
of Transportation has adopted, in fact, go well beyond what Congress 
has required to date. I am here today to have a real debate about 
safety and what we in Congress can do to take concrete

[[Page 24168]]

steps to ensure the highest standards of truck safety.
  The solution to me is simple, and it is embodied in my amendment, 
which we will have an opportunity to vote on. My amendment, for the 
first time, will make it U.S. law that every truck participating in the 
demonstration program must be inspected every 3 months to the same 
standard as U.S. trucks. Every driver entering this country under the 
program will have to verify compliance with safety requirements, and 
they would have to do so every time they entered the United States.
  The Department of Transportation's inspector general will be required 
to certify soon after the program is fully implemented that the 
Department has, in fact, inspected every truck and verified every 
driver. This is the Department of Transportation of the United States 
Government; no other government. They must verify every truck 
inspection and verify every driver. If the inspector general of the 
Department of Transportation fails to certify such, then funding for 
this program will be automatically suspended.
  Under this approach, for the first time, we will statutorily enshrine 
in American law the principle that we inspect and certify every Mexican 
truck that enters the United States through this program.
  It is also worth noting that this will be the first time in the 
history of the program that there will be an actual congressional 
requirement for the inspector general to certify the program. 
Previously, Congress has only required the inspector general to review 
the program.
  Finally, my amendment will require the administration to provide 60 
days' notice to Congress should they wish to extend or otherwise 
continue the demonstration project. Such notice will give this body 
ample time to consider the merits of the program as implemented and 
what modifications, if any, we want to make.
  By moving forward on a conditional basis with a threat of a full 
shutdown if the inspector general finds the program is noncompliant, we 
will further incentivize the Department of Transportation to 
strenuously enforce the safety inspection and verification requirements 
under this new law.
  It is also worth noting that the Department has already taken a ``go 
slow'' approach--I am glad they have--planning to allow only up to 25 
carriers per month into the program in the first 4 months. Even at the 
height of the program, the Department expects a maximum of 500 to 600 
trucks to participate, compared to the millions of domestic and 
Canadian trucks that currently operate on our roads.
  I have heard the claim has been made that there are no site-specific 
plans for each point of entry to ensure compliance with new 
verification and inspection standards. The Department of Transportation 
did, in fact, develop site-specific plans for all 25 commercial 
crossings in full coordination with Customs and Border Protection, and 
other relevant agencies, although they did not finish them in time for 
the inspector general's data collection.
  Furthermore, the inspector general raised concerns about training of 
State enforcement officials. Of course, any time a new policy is 
enacted, there will be challenges as personnel become accustomed to the 
new rules. That is why the Department has conducted and will continue 
to conduct rigorous training with State enforcement officials. And it 
is important we not look to training as a one-shot deal. Many of the 
lessons on how best to ensure the safety of trucks entering this 
country will be learned on the ground.
  I believe that instead of trying to kill this program, which will 
violate the treaty obligations of the United States of America as 
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and international arbitration 
panels, we in the Congress have a duty to find workable solutions that 
ensure as much as humanly possible the safety of trucks on our roads 
and make sure, whether they be American trucks or Mexican trucks or 
Canadian trucks, that they are all held to the same high standard.
  My amendment will do this, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 12 minutes 6 
seconds; the Senator from Texas has 13 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to close debate, if possible, at 
some point. Does the Senator from Texas have other speakers?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are checking, and we will be able to 
let you know momentarily.


                           Amendment No. 2842

  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2842 to the pending bill 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2842.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that every motor carrier entering the United States 
    through the cross-border motor carrier demonstration program is 
  inspected and meets all applicable safety standards established for 
                United States commercial motor vehicles)

       On page 70, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 194. (a) Not less frequently than once every 3 months, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall inspect every 
     commercial motor vehicle authorized to enter the United 
     States through the demonstration program to ensure that every 
     participating commercial motor vehicle complies with all 
     applicable safety standards established for United States 
     commercial motor vehicles.
       (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct an on-
     site preauthorization safety audit of every motor carrier 
     domiciled in Mexico that participates in the demonstration 
     program to ensure compliance with all applicable safety 
     standards established for motor carriers domiciled in the 
     United States.
       (c) The Secretary of Transportation shall verify, at the 
     point of entry, the safety compliance of every motor vehicle 
     and motor vehicle operator that enters the United States 
     through the demonstration program to ensure that every motor 
     vehicle and motor vehicle operator meets all applicable 
     safety standards established for United States commercial 
     motor vehicles and motor vehicle operators.
       (d)(1) Not later than 120 days after the commencement of 
     the demonstration program, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation shall submit a certification to 
     Congress that the Secretary of Transportation is in 
     compliance with this section.
       (2) No funds made available under this Act may be used for 
     the demonstration program if the Inspector General fails to 
     submit the certification required under paragraph (1).
       (e)(1) Not later than 60 days before implementing a cross-
     border motor carrier inspection program based on the 
     demonstration program, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     submit written notification that describes the Secretary's 
     intention to implement the inspection program to--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate;
       (C) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (D) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) The Secretary may not implement the inspection program 
     if Congress passes a law that terminates the program.
       (f) In this section--
       (1) the term ``commercial zones'' means the commercial 
     zones along the international border between the United 
     States and Mexico; and
       (2) the term ``demonstration program'' means the cross-
     border motor carrier demonstration program that authorizes 
     motor carriers domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond the 
     commercial zones along the international border between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       (g) Of the amounts appropriated for the Office of the 
     Secretary under this title, sufficient funds shall be made 
     available to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 
     this section.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.

[[Page 24169]]


  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold his request 
for a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold?
  Mr. CORNYN. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will you notify me when I have 7 minutes 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment that has just been described 
on page 4 ends with:

       Of the amounts appropriated for the Office of the Secretary 
     under this title, sufficient funds shall be made available . 
     . . to carry out this section.

  This is simply a mechanism to say let's just do this; let's fund it.
  The point I have made is very simple. There is no treaty that would 
require this Senate to decide to have something happen on our highways 
that we believe not to be safe. There is no treaty that requires us to 
open our borders to long-haul Mexican trucking at this moment unless we 
believe there is safety and soundness to that proposal. I do not 
believe that is the case.
  Let me again describe the three conditions that represent the 
problem. The suggestion that every truck will be inspected every time 
is simply not the case. On page 2, it says, from the inspector 
general's report, that it will not be the case:

       In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed 
     and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project 
     will increase the risk that project participants will be able 
     to avoid the required checks.

  This is not a legal issue; frankly, it is a safety issue. The 
question of accident reports, vehicle inspections, driver violations, 
the fact there is no national database--that is not me saying that, 
that is the inspector general--there is no national database, there is 
no database they can go to get this information, the fact that this 
information doesn't exist means that we don't know what the 
consequences will be.
  One of my colleagues earlier said: Let's try it. That is probably 
fine, if he feels like pulling up to a four-way stop sign next to an 
18-wheeler to try it and see whether there were vehicle inspections 
that were adequate or whether it has a driver who might have had three 
drunk driving accidents or perhaps 10 speeding violations nobody knows 
about because there is no database. Let's try it? How about let's not 
try it with our families or with the families of other Americans.
  Sheryl Jennings McGurk describes her family's experience. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a two-page statement 
from this woman, Sheryl Jennings McGurk.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Statement From Sheryl Jennings McGurk in Support of Dorgan-Specter 
                     Amendment, September 11, 2007

       On behalf of all members of my family, including my parents 
     and nephew lost in 2005 in a horrendous and unnecessary crash 
     with a large truck that should never have been where it was, 
     I strongly support the Dorgan/Specter amendment that will 
     prevent any spending to carry out the Mexican truck pilot 
     program begun by the federal government last week. We hope 
     that telling the story of what happened to my family will 
     help prevent others from going through what we have and what 
     we will continue to go through for the rest of our lives.
       My husband Sean and I were married on June 6th, 2004. This 
     was an extraordinarily special day for us because it was also 
     my parent's 45th wedding anniversary. They were married 
     following my father's graduation from the first class of the 
     United States Air Force Academy in 1959. I had a very close 
     relationship with my mom and dad, they were not just my 
     parents but they were also my best friends! They asked us to 
     share this date with them forever and of course we accepted, 
     hoping to be blessed with a long and happy marriage. It was a 
     special day shared by our family.
       My mom, Marie Jennings, was a beautiful, stylish, lady and 
     her bouncy and adventurous personality was the perfect 
     compliment to my dads more serious and quiet demeanor. My mom 
     served our country first as the wife of an Air Force officer, 
     and next as a mom, raising myself and my two older brothers, 
     David and Bob; swim team, soccer, boy scouts, girl scouts, 
     you name it, we kept her quite busy! We moved across the 
     country and around the world. As we grew up, she decided to 
     use her talents by working for the federal government as a 
     civil servant and she did so, for 25 years.
       My dad was an officer and gentleman! He retired as a 
     colonel after 27.5 years. He served first as a fighter pilot 
     in Vietnam where he was awarded the Distinguished Flying 
     Cross. He later became a test pilot and an instructor pilot. 
     During his career he flew almost all the planes the AF had at 
     the time. He loved to fly and had recently been recertified 
     so he could fly with his friend to attend an air show in 
     Oshkosh, WI. During his career, he still made time to be my 
     dad as a soccer coach, a ski buddy, and a private tutor. 
     Later on he decided to continue to serve his country by 
     teaching high risk youth at Hollywood High School in Los 
     Angeles, young adults at the University of Phoenix and he 
     also volunteered teaching for free at private schools.
       My nephew, David Michael Jennings, was a great kid! He was 
     my brother David's only son and the first grandchild. He was 
     born in Beavercreek, Ohio. He was active in high school. He 
     played football, the French horn in the marching band, ran 
     track, and was active in the Spanish and math clubs. David 
     was an Eagle Scout, quite an honor for any young man. He was 
     active in his community and his church. He volunteered as 
     team captain for Relay for Life and the Special Olympics. 
     Upon graduating high school, he left home to live with my 
     parents and attend junior college. He was completing his 
     sophomore year at Mira Costa College where he was a Student 
     Ambassador and active in student government. He sponsored a 
     5K run for charity and beach clean-ups in Carlsbad, CA. He 
     was transferring to UCSD in the fall.
       On February 15th, 2005, just 8 months after we were 
     married, my mom and dad started out on exciting journey to 
     visit my oldest brother, Bob, his wife Sandy, and their 
     youngest grandson, Jack. David volunteered to take my parents 
     to the airport. Unfortunately, their journey was cut short 
     only 30 miles from their home in Carlsbad, CA.
       It was around 5 a.m. A truck from Mexico was headed north 
     on I-5 when the driver thought he was having mechanical 
     issues. He pulled his truck off the freeway to check it out. 
     At that time he decided he would not be able to get his truck 
     from where he now was to Los Angeles where he needed to 
     deliver his goods. He decided to take his truck back onto the 
     freeway and headed south. It was a bad decision. His truck 
     proceeded to break down in the middle of the freeway. My 
     parents and nephew never had a chance.
       This accident was 100 percent avoidable. The truck had 
     numerous safety issues and should not have been operating in 
     the United States. For this, our lives are forever changed 
     and we lost three of the most incredible people. This loss 
     has left a hole in our lives that cannot be filled. To lose 
     your mom, your dad, and your nephew; all at once; is 
     indescribable. Your world changes in an instant.
       Please help ensure this doesn't happen again. Vote for the 
     Dorgan/Specter amendment. Safe roads are everyone's 
     responsibility.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, she describes an accident south of Los 
Angeles that took the life of several members of her family, an 
accident that was totally avoidable, she says. I quote her last 
paragraph:

       The accident was 100 percent avoidable. The truck had 
     numerous safety issues and should not have been operating in 
     the United States. For this, our lives are forever changed 
     and we lost three of the most incredible people [from our 
     family].

  This was a truck from Mexico headed north on I-5, a truck that had 
mechanical problems, a truck that had numerous safety issues. Three 
people are dead. This is not a legal issue, not for the Senate; this is 
a safety issue. And if you believe that you have all of the assurances 
you need that this will be safe, then I understand your vote. But if 
you look at what the inspector general report says clearly--the 
inspector general report says we don't have information on these key 
issues, the issues we would need to know before we decide to allow 
long-haul Mexican trucking into our country.
  As I indicated earlier, the American Trucking Association is an 
association that supported the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
Clayton Boyce, the vice president of public affairs for the American 
Trucking Association, said today, in fact:

       The group has grave concerns about how the pilot project 
     will be carried out and whether it will be safe.

  Even though they supported NAFTA. Let me say that again. The American 
Trucking Association said:

       The group has grave concerns about how the pilot project 
     will be carried out and whether it will be safe.

  I don't believe this is a legal issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that he has 7 minutes 
remaining.

[[Page 24170]]


  Mr. DORGAN. This Congress has the right to make decisions about 
safety on our highways. We made those decisions in many ways with 
respect to our internal regulations, our internal standards, and we 
enforce those standards, but that equivalent enforcement does not exist 
in Mexico at this point. If it existed, we would have a database in 
Mexico that would tell us immediately and quickly accident reports on 
drivers and vehicles, vehicle inspections, and driver violations. No 
such database exists, and that is the problem. That is why I think this 
pilot project is unwise. It is why Senator Specter, I, and others have 
offered an amendment to stop this pilot project.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yield yields time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess I have to agree with the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota that there is no legal issue 
because, frankly, the legal issues have all been decided, all the way 
up to the U.S. Supreme Court and by the NAFTA arbitration panel. So, in 
effect, the mandate to allow Mexican trucks that meet high safety 
standards is the law of the land. The question is whether we are going 
to comply with it in a way that protects the safety of the driving 
public in America.
  My amendment makes clear that we should maintain and mandate high 
standards, and my amendment does that. I would never tolerate an unsafe 
truck on our American highways, particularly on Texas highways. I don't 
care whether it comes from Mexico or Canada or from the United States, 
we should not tolerate unsafe trucks. What my amendment does is it 
makes sure that those high safety standards are enforced and 
maintained.
  I have to ask: How does it look if we are going to hold trucks coming 
from Mexico to a different standard than we are with trucks coming from 
Canada? The suggestion is that because trucks are coming from Mexico, 
they are somehow incapable of meeting these high safety standards. I 
can tell my colleagues, as somebody who comes from a border State with 
1,600 miles of common border with Mexico, there are challenges along 
the border, but legal trade and legal commerce are important to the 
people in Texas, and they are important to the people of the United 
States.
  For every truck entering into the United States from Mexico that has 
to be tested, if it fails to pass a test, it will be put out of 
service; for every truck that is going to come into the United States 
under NAFTA, a truck will be able to travel from the United States into 
Mexico.
  So this is a matter of enforcing free trade requirements that are 
part of the law of the land that have been litigated all the way up to 
the U.S. Supreme Court and about which there isn't any controversy. The 
only question that remains is whether we are going to treat trucks from 
Canada and trucks from Mexico the same. I submit we should, and we 
should hold both to the high standards of public safety which my 
amendment will require. And as I said earlier, if in fact trucks 
participating in this program must be inspected every 3 months, the 
same standard as U.S. trucks, every driver entering the country under 
this program would have to verify compliance with safety requirements 
and they would have to do so every time they enter the United States. 
If in fact the Department of Transportation's inspector general fails 
to certify that the program actually makes sure every truck is 
inspected and every driver is verified--if the inspector general fails 
to certify to such--then funding for this program would be 
automatically suspended.
  So under my approach, for the first time, we will enshrine the 
principle that we inspect and certify every single truck, whether it 
comes from Mexico or whether it comes from Canada, that would enter the 
United States under this program.
  I know that previously a letter from the Secretary of Transportation 
has been made part of the Congressional Record here which addresses 
some of the concerns raised by the Senator from North Dakota with 
regard to border license checks of drivers working for Mexican 
carriers. The Department of Transportation has noted that there is a 
required check of the commercial driver's license of each driver of a 
Mexican domiciled carrier crossing the border. So I believe the 
concerns raised by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota have 
been addressed by the Department of Transportation, and given the 
stringent inspection requirements and public safety requirements of my 
amendment, I believe that is what my colleagues should support, one 
that is compliant with what in essence is the law of the land and which 
will protect the safety of the public.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield 3 minutes to Senator Brown, 
and as I do that, let me say to Senator Brown, as I have said 
previously, the Cornyn amendment, in the last sentence, says let us 
just fund the pilot project. It has a lot of bouquets wrapped around 
it, but in the end it says, let us just fund this project. That is why 
I believe we should pass the Dorgan, Specter, et al., amendment.
  I yield 3 minutes to Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank my friend from North Dakota.
  Senator Dorgan has reviewed the numerous reasons why this pilot 
program doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to compromise safety 
laws, whether it is road safety, food safety, toy safety, or truck 
safety. Unsafe trucks on our roads, unsafe food on our tables, or 
dangerous toys in the hands of our children, all of this is part of a 
larger issue. It is about trade.
  It would be easier if it weren't. It would be easier if we didn't 
need strong trade rules to ensure truck safety and food safety and 
product safety, but it simply doesn't work that way. If we don't 
require China to export products as safe as those manufactured in the 
United States, our children will be exposed to lead paint and loose 
parts. If we don't write trade deals, as Senator Dorgan says, that 
prohibit unsafe trucks from our roads, more Americans--count on it--
will be killed on our highways. Yet we write trade deals that 
compromise and compromise and compromise away the safety standards that 
protect our children, our pets, our roads, and ourselves.
  Why should we agree to a trade deal that turns product safety into a 
reactive recall-driven enterprise? Not because it serves our families 
but because it serves multinational corporations. Why should we agree 
to trade deals that compromise road safety? Not because it serves our 
families but because it serves multinational corporations.
  Too often in both Chambers in this Congress we write trade deals that 
ignore consumers, coddle corporations, produce massive trade deficits, 
ensure unsafe imports, and export U.S. jobs. Instead, we could write 
trade rules that respect U.S. law and promote U.S. exports. We could 
write trade rules that keep our roads safe, our food and toys safe, 
that are fair to U.S. trading partners, and best for America's 
families. But it means letting go of expedient, shortsighted, lopsided 
free trade deals and embracing a new model.
  Instead of trade deals designed to benefit top management and 
multinational corporations, we should write trade deals designed to 
benefit everyone else. I am sure the benefit of those trade deals will 
ultimately trickle down to the Nation's CEOs. U.S. road safety laws 
make sense. Voting for the Dorgan amendment and voting against the 
Cornyn amendment demonstrates respect for those rules.
  I urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Texas has 8 minutes 44 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in the interest of finishing, I will use 
my 3 minutes.
  Let me say that when I said this is not a legal issue, my point is 
whether it has been in the courts or not, we make the law. We will 
determine tonight our destiny. That is our responsibility here in this 
Chamber. Because

[[Page 24171]]

we write the law and make the law, we will determine what the safety 
standards will be for America's roads tonight. My colleague from Ohio 
says it very well, in my judgment.
  There is an old saying: Never buy something from somebody who is out 
of breath. There is a kind of breathless quality to what the Department 
of Transportation did last Thursday night. They get the IG report at 
7:30; at 8:30 they announced, we made a decision: We got the report, 
studied it--we have some of the fastest lawyers in the world waiting on 
this--and away we go. Well, let me talk about what they missed. They 
missed the three key points with respect to the standards of safety, 
because the inspector general's report said there is no databank, no 
massive information with respect to accident reports, vehicle 
inspections, or driver violations in Mexico with Mexican trucking.
  The fact is they do not have equivalent enforcement in Mexico. That 
is just a fact. If you think there is equivalency between Canada, the 
United States, and Mexico, you just miss it.
  I had a trucker call me yesterday who said, look, I do this for a 
living, and I pull up at truckstops all over this country. I pull up in 
the short-haul areas 25 miles from the border, and I have talked to a 
lot of Mexican truckers and looked at their equipment. He said, if 
there are people who think there are equivalent standards, they are 
daydreaming.
  Let me say this, finally. Everything about NAFTA has gone haywire, to 
use a term of art. Everything. They said pass NAFTA, the trade 
agreement with Mexico and Canada, and things will be great. Well, we 
passed it. Guess what. We turned a small surplus into a huge trade 
deficit. They said what it will mean is low-skilled, low-wage jobs will 
move to Mexico. Well, guess what. The three biggest exports to Mexico 
are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics. All the products of 
high-skilled labor. Those are the jobs we lost. Huge deficits, and we 
lost a lot of important and good jobs. They said, we are going to cut 
the tariffs for accentuating trade between the two countries. Just 
months later, Mexico devalued the peso 50 percent, and all the gains in 
the tariff cut were gone and then some.
  So all of it is wrong. All of it has redounded against this country's 
interest. And now the latest chapter is to say, you know what, we are 
required to at this moment, notwithstanding what the inspector general 
says, notwithstanding that there is no databank with respect to vehicle 
inspections and drivers records, and so on, we are required to allow 
long-haul Mexican trucks into this country. Well, we are not required 
to do that.
  We are a body of lawmakers in the Senate and we ought to do what the 
House has already done. I hope by passing my amendment we will say to 
the Department of Transportation that they may not go forward with this 
pilot project because this is an issue of safety and we stand for 
safety in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish my distinguished colleagues from 
North Dakota and Ohio would take ``yes'' for an answer. I agree with 
them. Public safety is No. 1. That is what my amendment guarantees. It 
guarantees inspections of trucks whether they come from Mexico or 
domestic American trucks or whether they come from Canada.
  The U.S. Federal inspectors perform and Mexican trucking companies 
must pass a preauthorization safety audit conducted in Mexico by 
Americans prior to granting authority to operate beyond the U.S. border 
commercial zones. This audit includes inspection of vehicles the 
company intends to use in long-haul operations in the U.S. and a 
thorough inspection of the company's records to ensure compliance with 
Federal safety regulations. Vehicles not inspected cannot be used for 
long-haul operations in the United States. Every inspector reviews 
Federal safety regulations with the carrier, including those governing 
driver hours of service, to ensure the carrier is knowledgeable of and 
comprehends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations.
  This is not about safety, because we all agree that is nonnegotiable, 
and my amendment protects public safety. So what is it about? It is 
apparently about protectionism; it is apparently about fear of 
competition in the marketplace. It is fear of free trade, which, to my 
way of looking at things, provides new markets to American producers, 
new opportunities, more revenue, and creates more jobs right here at 
home.
  Why in the world would we want to do anything that would discourage 
job creation and greater prosperity here at home by opening up new 
markets and new opportunities to American producers? We can try the way 
of protectionism versus free trade, but I guarantee you that is a net 
loser for the American worker.
  So if this is about safety, then we certainly all agree. If this is 
about fear of competition and discriminating against Mexican trucks 
that are required to meet the same high safety standards as trucks that 
come from Canada, then I think that sends a very bad signal and not 
something the Senate should endorse.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  If all time has been yielded back or expired, I yield the remainder 
of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may yield back his time. The 
Senator from North Dakota has no time at present.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I ask, we have a vote ordered by 
unanimous consent at 7 o'clock; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is to take place at the expiration or 
yielding back of time or at 7 p.m.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might take 2 to 3 minutes to 
respond to Senator Coburn's amendment, which we will vote on, I 
believe, during this group of votes.
  I ask unanimous consent to use the time between now and 7 p.m. to 
respond to the amendment offered by Senator Coburn for which I have not 
had an opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2812

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Coburn has an objection to 
legislative directed spending for something called the International 
Peace Garden. He apparently believes that is unwarranted spending. Many 
of my colleagues perhaps will not know it by the International Peace 
Garden, but it is an institution that has been around since the 1930s. 
It has been supported at various times by the Government of Canada and 
by the Government of the United States. It exists between the United 
States and Canada and is a wonderful and a remarkable place. I would 
encourage all of my colleagues to visit the International Peace Garden 
at some point.
  We have a substantial number of buildings at the International Peace 
Garden that are in some disrepair. The Government of Canada and the 
Government of Manitoba have agreed to participate in some funding. The 
amount of funding that is in the appropriations bill is $450,000, and 
it represents the kind of commitment that our Federal Government has 
made in the past to maintain this wonderful institution called the 
International Peace Garden.
  We are proud of that institution, and sufficiently so that we put it 
on our license plates in North Dakota--The Peace Garden State. We are 
enormously proud it exists in our State. But as I have indicated 
previously, the Congress has, on previous occasions between the 1930s 
and today, assisted in some funding, very minimal funding, to upgrade 
some facilities there. The facilities are in substantial disrepair. The 
Government of Canada has made a commitment for some funds, and we wish 
to match those funds, so that is the purpose of this rather small 
earmark, but an earmark or legislative-directed funding, nonetheless.
  It is very important and will perform a very important purpose at the 
International Peace Garden. I hope the citizens of America are as proud 
of the existence of this peace garden as I am. The peace garden 
actually reflects the

[[Page 24172]]

determination and the dedication of two wonderful neighbors, the United 
States and Canada, and the peaceful co-existence that has existed for 
some long while.
  It has also been a place in which seminars have taken place, a band 
camp exists there, and so many other things occur that are a wonderful 
reflection of the best that is in all of us, those of us from the 
United States and Canada.
  My hope is my colleagues would agree with me, the amendment by the 
Senator from Oklahoma is not a worthy amendment. Let us do what the 
Government of Canada has already done and recognize the worth of the 
International Peace Gardens and dedicate a very small amount of funding 
to try to respond to its facilities' needs.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2797

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2797 offered by the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2797) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 331, I voted ``nay'' when 
it was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 2842

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment mandates that the Department 
of Transportation can inspect Mexican trucks, Canadian trucks, and 
American trucks by exactly the same high public safety standards.
  If, in fact, under this pilot program those requirements are not met, 
it defunds this pilot program that is part of our compliance with our 
1993 treaty agreements under NAFTA.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if you voted to shut down this program of 
long-haul trucks into the United States from Mexico, Senator Cornyn 
says: You were wrong. In his amendment, page 4, it says: We shall fund, 
sufficient funds shall be made available to the Secretary of 
Transportation to carry out this section.
  The reason I believe that is inappropriate is the inspector general 
last Thursday night said this: They could not get information about 
Mexican trucks with respect to vehicle inspection, accident reports, 
and driver violations. Why couldn't they? Because there is no database 
available. None available.
  There will come a time when this is just fine, but it is not now. The 
first and most important concern at this point is safety on the roads 
of this country. I hope those who voted for the Dorgan-Specter 
amendment will decide to vote against the Cornyn amendment, which funds 
the very program against which the Senate has just voted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 332 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter

                                NAYS--69

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2842) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I share Senator Coburn's concern for our 
Nation's bridges, but I must oppose his amendment. We cannot fund our 
Nation's infrastructure on the backs of crucial road safety projects 
that save tax dollars and lives.
  The Senator's amendment specifically eliminates crucial funding for 
bike and pedestrian trails in Illinois and across the country. His 
amendment will have seriously adverse consequences for millions of 
Illinois residents.
  The Federal transportation programs do provide flexible funding for 
States and localities to set aside Federal money for bike and walking 
trails, yet States tend to fund trails as a last resort--only if they 
can't use that money for roads and intersections.

[[Page 24173]]

  For example, in fiscal year 2006, States rescinded $602 million of 
Transportation Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in 
that year. A more proportional share would have been closer to 3 
percent. The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, or CMAQ, 
accounts for approximately 4-5 percent of highway apportionments each 
year but CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 percent of total 
highway funds rescinded in recent years.
  CMAQ and Transportation Enhancements are the major sources of funding 
for bicycle facilities in cities and communities across the country.
  Given such drastic rescissions at the State level, communities are 
increasingly approaching Congress for help to fund their local trail 
construction and expansion projects.
  Incorporating bike and pedestrian trails and access into 
transportation systems and planning is essential for safety.
  Bicycling and walking currently account for 10 percent of trips and 
13 percent of fatalities nationally, but receive less than 2 percent of 
Federal transportation funds.
  In Illinois, such fatalities are worse than the national average. For 
example, 15.1 percent of traffic deaths in Illinois in 2000-2001 were 
people on foot or bicycle.
  It is no coincidence that Illinois' numbers of pedestrian and bike 
fatalities were so high at that time, considering that we did not spend 
any of our Federal safety dollars on bicycle or pedestrian projects 
between 1998-2001.
  With that lack of investment, this is no time to cut funding. The 
U.S. Department of Transportation knows this as well. In its policy 
statement entitled ``Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A 
Recommended Approach,'' the U.S. DOT states:

       There is no question that conditions for bicycling and 
     walking need to be improved in every community in the United 
     States; it is no longer acceptable that 6,000 bicyclists and 
     pedestrians are killed in traffic every year, that people 
     with disabilities cannot travel without encountering 
     barriers, and that two desirable and efficient modes of 
     travel have been made difficult and uncomfortable.

  My hometown of Springfield, IL, has been trying to keep pace with 
trail access and pedestrian safety even while the road system is 
growing. The Interurban Trail was started several years ago with 
assistance from State, Federal and local resources. Approximately 5 
miles in length, the trail extends from Springfield to the Village of 
Chatham with little to no vehicular cross traffic or intersections.
  I have been on the trail and let me tell what I see. People on bikes, 
hikers, joggers, walkers, moms and dads with strollers. The community 
loves the trail. The Springfield Park District estimates tens of 
thousands of users each year.
  Regional planners are building on the Interurban Trail as the 
starting point for future development of other trails, including the 
Sangamon Valley Trail.
  And it's not just recreational. Many residents of Chatham and 
Springfield use this trail system as an alternative to roads for 
commuting to and from work.
  Unfortunately, a major new construction project to extend MacArthur 
Boulevard threatens the Interurban Trail.
  The Interurban Trail needs to be relocated because of the 
construction and several new high speed intersections.
  This proposed amendment would mean the bike and walking trails in 
Springfield either shut down or go through new, high-speed 
intersections that we know statistically are likely to result in loss 
of life.
  This amendment would be a huge step backward for safety in 
transportation.
  The CDC has shown that since the mid-70s, the prevalence of 
overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and 
children. Data from 2 CDC surveys show that among adults, the 
prevalence of obesity increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 33 percent 
in 2004.
  A 2003 study shows that by the age of 40, a nonsmoking obese woman 
loses 7.1 years of life expectancy, and a nonsmoking obese man loses 
5.8 years.
  And the obesity epidemic is spreading to our children at an alarming 
rate. In 2004, an estimated 9.9 million children and teens were 
considered overweight. They are taking in too many empty and fat-laden 
calories and not exercising enough.
  Moreover, physical activity need not be strenuous to be beneficial. 
For example, CDC research shows that adults benefit tremendously from 
moderate exercise, such as 30 minutes of brisk walking most days of the 
week.
  Multilane roads have replaced sidewalks and bike paths. Children's 
play spaces are far away or unsafe. Designing communities so that 
children have ample opportunity for physical activity is in our 
country's best interests.
  These bike and trail projects promote exercise and healthy physical 
activity like biking, walking and running. They also give people the 
option of walking or biking to get to work, school or shop.
  Manteno, IL, is working to accomplish just that. The village of 
Manteno has developed a plan to create a village-wide trail system to 
connect existing parks, schools, and community-use buildings.
  The project proposes 15,000 linear feet of a 10-foot-wide trail for 
walking, for bicycles and for wheelchairs. The north section will 
connect county Highway 9 to Lake Manteno Road and Maple Street--
creating access to 3 of the town's 4 public schools where none now 
exist.
  Having already installed nearly 3,000 feet of trails and raised 
nearly $130,000 to continue the project, the trail system will promote 
alternate forms of transportation throughout the village.
  The village of Manteno supports this trail funding, including the 
village chamber of commerce, the school district, the Village 
President, the village trustees, and the local Parks and Recreation 
Commission.
  Given our increasing dependence on foreign oil and increasing traffic 
congestion, we need bike and pedestrian trails to save gas and minimize 
congestion.
  These bike and trail projects can spur economic development and bring 
increased economic activity and tourism for a small investment.
  The Grand Illinois Trail, GIT, is a great example. This Trail was 
first conceived of in the mid-1990s by the Illinois Department of 
Natural Resources and is overwhelmingly supported by cities and 
villages, forest preserve and conservation districts, as well as 
commerce and community-based organizations.
  The Grand Illinois Trail is a loop that circles northern Illinois 
stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River and back--over 
500 miles in all. It encompasses smaller trails such as the Great River 
Trail in Savanna, IL, and the GIT Carbon Cliff.
  Approximately 90 percent of the route is in place and you can bike, 
hike, horseback ride, cross country ski, snowmobile, and canoe through 
the scenic landscape of northern Illinois and along Chicago's 
Lakefront, Illinois' beautiful rivers, historic canals and scenic 
country roads.
  One goal of this loop trail is to ensure safe passage from one local 
trail to the next. In Savanna, IL, a new trail leading to town is cut 
off from the highly popular Great River Trail by a frightening 1.4 mile 
stretch of Illinois 84--a real safety issue for bicyclists and hikers 
using the trail.
  The Grand Illinois Trail is supported by the Illinois Departments of 
Commerce and Community Affairs and Transportation, the Illinois 
Historic Preservation Agency, the Illinois Chapter of the Rails-to-
Trails Conservancy, The League of Illinois Bicyclists, the Illinois 
Trail Riders and the Illinois Association of Park Districts.
  Trails are becoming common in residential neighborhoods. Development 
plans for homes, apartments, and townhouses often include footpaths to 
enhance recreational opportunities and property values.
  Bike and pedestrian trails bring customers to local businesses and 
have been used as cheap, effective ways to spur downtown redevelopment 
across the country. A modest investment into bike-friendly design can 
bring huge economic benefits.
  Aurora, IL, is nearing completion of the Fox River Trail in northern 
Illinois. The last gap in the region's 50+

[[Page 24174]]

mile Fox River Trail is in downtown Aurora.
  Elgin, a village close in size and location to Aurora, completed its 
Fox River Trail gap to help spur successful downtown redevelopment. 
Similarly, Naperville, IL, has over 100 people biking to their commuter 
rail station daily, partly due to their bike network. Aurora wants to 
repeat these successes.
  This amendment would take away an important economic tool and would 
bring decreased investment and economic activity to towns that need it.
  Tailpipe emissions from automobiles and trucks account for almost 
half of Chicago's air pollution, contributing to asthma and other 
respiratory problems suffered by more than 650,000 people in 
Metropolitan Chicago.
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has noted the benefits of 
alternative modes of transportation for reducing transportation 
emissions while also reducing traffic congestion.
  The 2001 U.S. National Household Travel Survey tells us that in 
metropolitan areas more than 40 percent of trips are two miles or 
less--a very manageable bike ride and more than one-quarter are just 1 
mile or less. Furthermore, the data shows that within the 28 percent of 
the trips that are one mile or less in urbanized areas, 66 percent are 
made by car.
  These short trips are the most polluting and the easiest to switch to 
bicycling.
  At a time when these communities are seeking to reduce traffic 
congestion, improve air quality, increase the safety of their 
neighborhoods, and decrease petroleum dependence, bicycles offer a 
relatively simple, energy-saving alternative to driving.
  Bicycles have no carbon emissions and don't contribute to smog. If 
each of the three million households in northeastern Illinois walked or 
biked just one mile every day, we would reduce daily vehicle emissions 
by more than 1800 kilograms.
  Senator Coburn has called these projects pork-barrel spending. This 
flies in the face of the overwhelming local support for these modest 
projects.
  Bike and pedestrian projects have the most support from the 
communities back home, from the block associations and bike groups who 
use the streets and know that without this Federal investment, the 
streets will continue to not be adequate to walk, jog, or bike on.
  Beyond community support, these trails actually connect communities. 
Look at the trail along the Calumet River in Chicago's Southland. This 
project, referred to as the Cal-Sag Trail, is a 26-mile nonmotorized 
corridor that is carved into racial and socio-economic chunks along the 
alignments of major transportation corridors: Major streets and 
intersections, expressways, rail lines, the Calumet-Sag itself.
  These transportation facilities are also barriers when they serve as 
convenient boundaries when planning housing, economic opportunities, 
school affiliations, and other issues related to quality life. The Cal-
Sag Trail has the potential to help cross all of those lines, 
connecting many types of neighborhoods that exist in the regions, 
allowing anyone, regardless of ability or background, free passage to 
resources and opportunities--it will be the first trail development in 
the region that raises the social equity of all the communities it 
serves.
  A majority of the public--53 percent--favors increasing Federal 
spending to build more bike paths for easier and safer bicycling, even 
if it means fewer gas-tax dollars go to building roads.
  Half of the public--50 percent--favors requiring new road 
construction and maintenance projects to include bicycle paths, even if 
it would mean less room for cars and trucks.
  And the projects that the Senator intends to cut come to us directly 
from the people who do not have the usual flashy, well-funded advocacy 
campaigns we are used to here in the Congress.
  This was very apparent during debate of the last transportation bill. 
Of the 1,912 registered lobbyists affiliated with the Transportation 
bill, only three represented bicycling.
  They didn't need lobbyists because we all heard from the local 
citizens and small businesses on the street about the need for us to 
make our roads and streets safer. And we incorporated that need into 
the last transportation bill and these projects continue that effort.
  Besides those who bike by choice, Government agencies should have an 
obligation to make transportation safer for those who bike--or walk--
out of necessity--often for economic--or age--reasons.
  8.3 percent of American households do not own cars, including 26.5 
percent of those with incomes under $20,000--2001 National Household 
Travel Survey. Transit is not the entire answer for these people--many 
of whom rely on bikes to get around.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2811

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes equally divided for debate prior to a vote in relation to 
Coburn amendment No. 2811.
  The senior Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
are now going to move to a Coburn amendment. We will have 2 minutes 
equally divided and a vote. We are very close to finishing this bill. 
There are some amendments in a managers' package on which we are moving 
rapidly forward. We have a couple of Senators who may require a vote on 
an amendment and final passage. In the next vote, we are going to try 
to work out a final agreement on whether to have those votes tonight or 
the first thing in the morning. But if we can get a final list of 
amendments, we will let all Senators know, by the end of the next vote, 
what the path forward is, following this vote.
  I believe the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, he yields back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Coburn 
amendment.
  Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I asked for the yeas and nays.
  The Chair asked whether there was a sufficient second. There was a 
sufficient second. And then a motion was made to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays on the amendment do not 
preclude a motion to table.
  Mr. COBURN. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll on the Murray 
motion to table the Coburn amendment.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 333 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper

[[Page 24175]]


     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     Sessions
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I am sorry to take the time of the Senate, but this 
amendment affects the State Senator Webb and I are proud to represent, 
and there are just some mistaken facts I want to clear up in the 
record.
  The proponent of the amendment said that this thing would cost $16 
million, a bike path, but in effect it ended up costing $1.2 million. 
The bike path was a part of a larger project of $210 million under the 
SAFETEA-LU law, and there was no earmark that we can find. It was 
required by the Federal authorities to build a bike path as replacing a 
bridge. So I am sorry. I tried to help my colleague, but I just got 
this information. I have been in a hearing all day, or most of the day, 
in the Armed Services Committee. But I will amplify this for the 
record. I apologize, but I felt it important that the record be 
corrected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the senior Senator from Virginia and express my appreciation 
to him for having caught this inaccuracy that was being spoken about on 
the floor.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might add, we were both at the 
hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee when the staffs 
frantically contacted us to try to correct this factual error.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will shortly ask that a quorum call begin. 
We are very close to being able to have something worked out. I have 
had conversations with my Republican counterpart. What we will do--and 
the staffs are working on a unanimous consent agreement--we have maybe 
a Coburn amendment, we have a DeMint amendment, and we have 2 Menendez 
amendments. That is likely all we have to finish this bill. We want the 
debate to be completed on all of these amendments except for we have 
asked--Senator Kennedy has asked and Senator DeMint has asked that they 
have 20 minutes equally divided in the morning. That will be the only 
debate in the morning. We will debate the rest of the amendments 
tonight and we will vote on them in the morning. I think that is in 
keeping with what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think 
would be the best way to dispose of this. I think they are right.
  So I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum, and we will see if 
we can get the staff to bring that out to us very quickly. It should be 
within the next few minutes.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a short statement with respect to a 
vote we are going to take tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 2814

  In one of my favorite movies, a baseball field is built in the middle 
of Iowa and becomes a mecca for baseball players and fans that 
seemingly come from anywhere and everywhere to watch baseball. Today in 
Billings, MT, folks are hoping that the popular movie ``Field of 
Dreams'' was right. ``If we build it, they will come.''
  Baseball is America's game. It is part of what defines us as 
Americans. There is something special about sitting in the bleachers on 
a summer's evening, eating peanuts, and watching a good baseball game. 
For over 60 years now, the best venue to watch a baseball game in 
Montana has been historic Cobb Field in Billings--Montana's largest 
city.
  Opening in 1948, Cobb Field is the longtime home of the Billings 
Mustangs, a minor league baseball team. It also serves NCAA baseball as 
well as American Legion baseball.
  Many notable professional baseball players--Dave McNally, George 
Brett, Trevor Hoffman, Rob Dibble, Paul O'Neill, and Stormin' Gorman 
Thomas, to name a few--have at one time called Cobb Field ``Home.''
  Unfortunately, Cobb Field is an above-ground wooden structure stadium 
that is not compliant with building codes. Despite several major 
renovations and repairs, the stadium continues to deteriorate at an 
increasing rate due to water damage and wood rot. Conditions are unsafe 
for Montanans who want to watch a baseball game, particularly for 
children and Montanans with disabilities.
  To solve this problem, the people of Billings have decided to build a 
new stadium to replace Cobb Field. In March, the city broke ground on 
this new stadium.
  The new stadium will be a state-of-the-art venue that will meet the 
needs and wishes of the citizens of Billings to have a facility that 
can be a safe, multi-use venue to host baseball games, concerts, 
festivals, and markets.
  More importantly, the new stadium will be an economic development 
center located in one of Billings' oldest neighborhoods in need of a 
shot of revitalization.
  This new stadium will spur redevelopment efforts that are so needed 
in this area of downtown Billings. Over 100,000 people attended events 
at Cobb Field last year. For a state with 900,000 people, that's a lot. 
With the new stadium, it is estimated that there will be a 100 percent 
increase in ticket sales.
  Last November, voters approved a bond election authorizing the city 
of Billings to sell bonds up to $12.5 million to design a new 3,500-
seat baseball and multi-use stadium. The people of Billings have 
stepped forward with the lion's share of the costs of the stadium. In 
addition, Montanans have donated over $2 million in private pledges to 
offset the taxpayers' costs of repaying the $12.5 million in bonds.
  Because of the local funding that has been secured for the project, 
our Montana delegation has requested $500,000 in Federal funding to 
support the funds that the local community has already stepped forward 
with.
  I have fought hard over the years for my home State of Montana. My 
colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, has done the same. Each year, I 
make requests to the Appropriations Committee to provide funding for 
worthy Montana projects. I stand behind the requests I make.
  A vote for the Coburn amendment is a vote against me and the people 
of Montana. We will remember.
  This is such a small amount of Federal dollars compared to the 
contribution the people of Billings are making that I believe voting 
for Cobb Field is something Montanans prefer, but I think the people 
across this whole country who are big baseball fans would also agree.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the floor 
open for debate?

[[Page 24176]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is open for debate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator would be kind enough to 
withhold for a moment. We just want to get Senator Bond so we can do 
the unanimous consent agreement, and then you would be recognized first 
as soon as they finish that. Would that be OK?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could be the first recognized after the 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
following be the only amendments, other than a managers' amendment that 
has been cleared by the managers and the leaders, remaining to H.R. 
3074; that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendment: Coburn amendments 2812 and 2814 en bloc; 
DeMint amendment relating to Davis-Bacon; Menendez amendment No. 2826; 
Menendez amendment No. 2834; that there be 2 minutes for debate prior 
to each vote, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be 
limited to 10 minutes; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, 
the bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on 
passage of the bill; that the Coburn and Menendez amendments be debated 
during today's session; that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
the bill on Wednesday, September 12, there be 20 minutes of debate with 
respect to the DeMint amendment, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between Senators DeMint and Kennedy, or their designees; and 
that no points of order be considered waived by this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I had 
difficulty hearing the Senator. On the DeMint amendment, did I hear 
there was no time limit?
  Mrs. MURRAY. No.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have not yet worked out with the minority 
our being able to go to conference on this. We feel positive we can do 
that tomorrow. We need to do this. We are in the process of going to 
conference on the three bills we have already passed. We had meetings 
at the White House today. We believe it is most appropriate to send the 
President bill after bill rather than a big bunch at the same time. We 
hope that by tomorrow we can work it out so we can go to conference. I 
have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with that agreement, Senators should 
understand that tomorrow morning we will come in, there will be 20 
minutes of debate between Senators DeMint and Kennedy on the DeMint 
amendment. We will go immediately to the four votes on amendments, with 
final passage to be completed in the morning. With that, there will be 
no more votes tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about this bill and to 
bring up an issue that I think is going to become more and more 
apparent as a problem for our Interstate Highway System. I had hoped to 
offer an amendment that would attempt to begin to solve this problem, 
but the managers have resisted having authorization on an 
appropriations bill, and I understand their concern. However, this is 
an issue that must be dealt with. If we cannot deal with it on an 
appropriations bill, hopefully, next year we can begin to discuss the 
alternative for the next authorization of highway funds, and certainly, 
it is a universal issue that must come up.
  This is the issue. There is more and more interest in putting tolls 
on highways. Well, I think if a local government or State government 
wants to have a toll highway, they should go through all of the 
processes--a vote of the people, or a vote of the elected officials--so 
the elected officials are accountable to do that.
  Our Interstate Highway System was created in the Eisenhower 
administration for the purpose of having a free highway system that 
would connect our country all the way from the West to the East, from 
the North to the South. It was for security purposes but also for 
commerce.
  The highway fund was created because the Western States were small 
and they did not have the capability to raise the funds to build their 
highways. Many States are donor States and have built these highways--
especially out in the West. State leaders are now trying to take these 
Federal highways and put tolls on them and use those highway tolls for 
other purposes--in some cases, for mass transit; in some cases, it 
would be going into other State projects.
  I think this is a dangerous precedent. It is dangerous to start 
taking highways built with Federal taxpayer dollars and put tolls on 
them and, in some cases not even reimburse the Federal taxpayers. I 
still think it would be wrong to allow the buyback of a Federal highway 
by a State and then for the State to put a toll on it. In some cases, 
we are looking at tolls being put on an entire freeway--not just one 
lane but the entire freeway.
  In fact, I think if you want to toll a lane on a Federal highway to 
build a new lane to add to the number of free lanes that are there, 
that would be acceptable. I also think you have some avenues to use the 
right-of-way that is in place to toll and build a new freeway with that 
toll. But to take an existing interstate highway and toll every lane, 
when it has already been paid for by the Federal taxpayers, is 
absolutely wrong, and we must have a vehicle to address this issue.
  Now, I have talked to the chairman of my State highway commission, 
and he has suggested that this might be an option that Texas wants to 
do. I object strenuously to Texas doing that, and I am going to do 
everything I can to keep our Texas taxpayers from paying for another 
opportunity to use a road that they have already paid for. I am going 
to resist that. But the chairman of the highway commission did make a 
very important point, and that was, just tell us what the rules are. 
There are not rules that lay out how we can address the transportation 
issues in the States, and I think every State is probably facing this 
problem. He was honest enough to say just give me the rules, tell me 
what I can do, and we will work with that.
  Of course, a donor State such as ours is sensitive to the fact that 
we don't get back one dollar for every dollar that is put into the 
highway system. I think we have done a better job at a time when we 
start looking at parity in the highway fund, and I think a fair 
conclusion would be that the Interstate Highway System has been built 
and let's make sure that every State now has the ability to use its own 
taxpayer funds to build its own roads. I think parity should be the end 
result, and I think we should be there now. Unfortunately, for a lot of 
history and a lot of nostalgia about the Interstate Highway System, 
that is not a fight that we can have today. It is not a fight that we 
will be able to solve tonight.
  I do want to bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that we 
should not allow, on a piecemeal basis, one highway segment at a time, 
to all of a sudden wake up and find that we don't have an Interstate 
Highway System that is in place as it was created to be--a free highway 
for the citizens of this country to be able to travel anywhere in our 
country on an interstate system that works. We are going to wake up to 
this scenario if we allow what is happening right now to continue 
unabated. So I am going to do everything I can in my power to see that 
this scenario does not occur. I am going to do everything in my power 
to see that Texans do not have tolls put on our Federal highway system. 
I think we need a policy that would be nationwide, so that every 
taxpayer who has already paid for these roads would not be tolled again 
for the ability to go and use those roads. We are not going to solve 
that problem tonight, but it is

[[Page 24177]]

going to be a major effort I will make in the future to solve this 
problem. I ask the authorizing committee, when they do reauthorize the 
highway program, which will have to be reauthorized within the next 2 
years, to address this issue with an eye toward equity, with an eye 
toward protecting our taxpayers and, most important, with an eye toward 
keeping the original intent and mission of the Interstate Highway 
System--to have a free Interstate Highway System that works for our 
country and does indeed complete the United States of America both in 
security and commerce.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2812

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has an amendment 
pending before the body that would strike funding for the International 
Peace Garden in my State of North Dakota. This measure calls for a 
modest amount of money--$450,000--to support the International Peace 
Garden. The International Peace Garden has been a proud monument to the 
history of good relations between the United States and Canada for many 
years.
  Canada contributes, the State of North Dakota contributes, and the 
Province of Manitoba contributes. There has been a history of Federal 
support, and now the Senator from Oklahoma, for some unknown reason, 
has picked out the International Peace Garden as something to eliminate 
from Federal support.
  This is a story from October of last year in the Minot Daily News, 
saying: ``Peace Garden Is In Need: Garden In Dire Need Of Money For 
Repairs, Operations.''
  Why on earth the Senator from Oklahoma has picked on the 
International Peace Garden as something to eliminate leaves me 
scratching my head. This is a picture of the International Peace 
Garden. It is on the border between our country and Canada. It stands 
as testimony to the peaceful relations we have enjoyed on this border 
for our history. You can see in this photo these are absolutely 
beautiful gardens, with these memorial towers. This is the site of an 
international music camp that is conducted every year, which is world 
class. It is has attracted some of the world's greatest musicians.
  For some reason, the Senator from Oklahoma says none of this has any 
value. Let's just cut it all, eliminate all $450,000, which, I might 
say, is a modest amount of money in the context of an International 
Peace Garden. This is a monument on the grounds of the garden, which 
consists of girders from the World Trade Center. Our Governor and the 
Manitoba Premier were just here today to commemorate the 
9/11 anniversary. The Senator from Oklahoma says this has no value.
  Sometimes things that are not a road or a bridge or a battleship have 
value. The International Peace Garden has value. The people of North 
Dakota provide money to support it. The people of Manitoba provide 
money to support it. The Government of Canada provides money to support 
it. I hope this body will reject the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Why is there any validity to saying there is no justification for 
Federal support for an international peace garden? I honestly don't 
know what argument the Senator from Oklahoma advances to say this has 
no value.
  Let me indicate where the International Peace Garden is. It is right 
here, almost equidistant between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic 
Ocean. The International Peace Garden stands in the middle of my State 
of North Dakota in Dunseith.
  This is a headline, again from last year, in the Fargo Forum, the 
biggest newspaper in my State. It says: ``On the border of withering. 
The International Peace Garden supporters seek measures to keep alive 
iconic crossborder park.''
  I have been at the International Peace Garden many times. It is an 
inspirational setting. It is something that I think anyone who visits 
the more than 2300 acres of--more than 2300 acres of the most 
spectacular gardens I have ever seen in my life anywhere in the world. 
Why the Senator from Oklahoma believes we ought to eliminate any 
Federal support for this peace garden that is dedicated to the 
extraordinary relationship we have had with our border to the North 
absolutely eludes me.
  For him to suggest this has no value, has he ever been there? Has he 
ever talked with the officials of Canada who have generously supported 
this institution? Has he talked with the people of Manitoba or the 
people of North Dakota? I am certain not because he would find in my 
State, which is a very conservative State, that there is very strong 
support for the International Peace Garden. This is a point of pride in 
our relations with our neighbors to the North.
  More than that, it sends a signal to the world about the value the 
American people put on peace. Do we have the strongest military in the 
world? Absolutely, and we are proud of it. Do we have the greatest 
economic strength of any country in the world? Yes, and we are proud of 
it. Do we lead in many areas in terms of human accomplishment, science, 
the arts? Absolutely, and we are proud of it.
  We also should send forth the signal that we are a country that 
believes in peace, and we strive for peace because that is part of the 
American character, too. And this International Peace Garden sends that 
message. It certainly sends that message to the people of Canada who 
are among our closest allies, who have stood with us in every crisis. 
Who, when the tragedy of 9/11 occurred, were the first people to our 
side? It was our neighbors to the North in Canada.
  This International Peace Garden, again more than 2300 acres of 
stunningly beautiful and inspirational gardens, stands as a memorial to 
that extraordinary relationship between our countries. Certainly, it is 
worth the expenditure of $450,000 to reinvigorate this symbol of 
respect.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2826

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement, I call up amendment No. 2826 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and 
     Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2826.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a study by the Government Accountability Office on 
the efficacy of strategies used by the Federal Aviation Administration 
   and the Department of Transportation to address flight delays at 
                     airports in the United States)

       On page 18, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 116. (a) Government Accountability Office Study and 
     Report on Flight Delays.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or 
     expended by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 
     Metropolitan Airspace Redesign until the Comptroller General 
     of the United States submits the report required by 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study on the efficacy of strategies employed by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
     Secretary of Transportation to address flight delays at 
     airports in the United States.
       (2) Contents.--The study required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include an assessment of--
       (A) efforts by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to induce voluntary schedule reductions by air 
     carriers at Chicago O'Hare International Airport;
       (B) the mandatory flight reduction operations instituted by 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration at 
     LaGuardia Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National 
     Airport;
       (C) the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan 
     Airspace Redesign; and
       (D) any other significant efforts by the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration or the Secretary of 
     Transportation

[[Page 24178]]

     to reduce flight delays at airports in the United States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report including--
       (1) the results of the study required by subsection (b); 
     and
       (2) recommendations regarding which of the strategies 
     described in subsection (b) reduce airport delays most 
     effectively when employed for periods of 6 months or less.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the great work the Senator 
from Washington, Mrs. Murray, as well as the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond, have done in crafting a bill with very tough 
parameters and to do so on a whole host of issues that are critical to 
the country's future. I look forward to being supportive of the bill 
overall.
  I hope from our conversation with the committee that, in fact, two 
amendments I will be offering, or versions thereof, will be accepted by 
the committee.
  Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer along with my colleague 
Senator Lautenberg, is about flight delays that we have been 
experiencing throughout the country. In my home State of New Jersey, 
Newark Liberty International Airport is one of the most delayed 
airports in the country. About half its flights were delayed this 
summer. These delays are unacceptable. Delays often mean a vacation cut 
short, a missed business meeting, or less time with loved ones.
  There are environmental consequences, as very often delays take place 
on the runway with the idling of engines and the emissions therefor. 
They are a demoralizing experience, an experience punctuated by long 
waits, little communication, and often no recourse.
  When I speak with the FAA and the airline industry about how to solve 
the problem, I hear two things. First, they say we need to upgrade air 
traffic control equipment, and I am wholeheartedly supportive of that 
effort, and I believe this bill sets us on the path for an eventual 
technological upgrade of the entire air traffic system.
  Second, I hear the FAA's airspace redesign in the New York/New 
Jersey/Philadelphia region will also ease delays. I have a difficult 
time, having viewed what they came out with, to believe that, in fact, 
is going to be largely accomplished by the very fact that we are 
looking, at best, at seconds, eventually reducing delays by less than 
20 percent. It seems to me by fanning out arrivals and departures, 
there might be a slight decline in delays, but this slight reduction in 
delays probably will not even be noticeable. Some have calculated this 
benefit to be as low as 25 seconds saved per flight.
  I have been advocating with the FAA that they look at a variety of 
other issues, as well as deal with flight delays in the New York-New 
Jersey region. I wrote a letter asking the FAA to examine 
comprehensive, short-term solutions, such as whether temporary limits 
on operations should be placed on all of the regions' airports. I also 
asked them to examine whether priorities should be given to larger 
planes, particularly during periods of extreme congestion. Finally, at 
the very least, the FAA should have a meeting with all the regions' 
airports and discuss the possibility of voluntary flight reductions.
  It is interesting to me that the letter I sent to the Administrator 
today--the Administrator came out and said to the industry: You better 
seriously considering getting your schedules together and figuring out 
a reduction in the amounts of scheduled flights you have because if you 
don't do so, you may end up with a Federal response to that extent.
  So I think the Administrator, rightfully so, is trying to get the 
industry to do that what it needs to do I believe both for the industry 
and the flying public. These short-term solutions I propose will not 
require years to implement or billions of dollars in new funds. 
Instead, they require sensible planning on how to allocate the scarce 
resource of a seat on an airplane.
  This has been done in other parts of the country. We have seen in the 
past FAA successfully address air delays by holding scheduled reduction 
meetings with airlines or even capping the number of flights, as they 
do at Reagan National and LaGuardia.
  This amendment would largely have the GAO, an independent body, make 
sure that we have a study within a very short time, 120 days, to tell 
us how the tools that the FAA has used in other places in the country 
can be available to conquer flight delays in the short term and not 
simply wait for long-term, expensive solutions that only address a 
fraction of the problem. I do believe an independent study would be 
incredibly helpful.
  In addition to airspace redesign, we look at the other critical 
issues of delay that have an economic consequence and an environmental 
consequence and a quality-of-life consequence as well.
  I look forward to the committee adopting a version of this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2834

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the 
pending amendment aside and ask that amendment No. 2834 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. MENENDEZ] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2834.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional funding to the Secretary of Housing and 
 Urban Development to implement guidance in connection with assisting 
 persons with limited English proficiency and to provide for an offset 
                           of such increase)

       On page 73, line 8, strike ``$252,010,000'' and insert 
     ``$251,630,000''.
       On page 110, line 23, strike ``$52,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$52,380,000''.
       On page 111, line 6, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $380,000 shall be available to 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for the 
     creation and promotion of translated materials and other 
     programs that support the assistance of persons with limited 
     english proficiency in utilizing the services provided by the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development.''.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have in my hand the Federal Register 
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Basically, what it 
has done is said that under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, they are 
going to have private property owners throughout the country have to 
devise a series of documents. Instead of HUD having a uniform document, 
all of these documents will be crafted by the individual private sector 
entities across the country.
  What that is going to do is shift an enormous financial burden on 
private property owners across the country and, equally as important in 
my mind, in pursuit of title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, it is going to 
lead to huge litigation across the country because we can have a 
variety of documents all for the same purposes being drafted in dozens, 
literally hundreds of different ways. That, in my mind, does not make 
common sense as it relates to the shifting of the burden on private 
property owners across the country, and it certainly does not make 
common sense in terms of having a uniform documentation that can ensure 
that at the end of the day, we do not see the courts flooded with 
different interpretations of those documents.
  We simply put a very modest amount, but from all the parties who are 
engaged with this we have determined $380,000 will ultimately ensure we 
do not shift this huge burden on all the private property owners across 
the landscape of the country and, at the same time, have uniform 
documents that won't lead us to a flood of lawsuits and preserve the 
very essence of what the title 6 Executive Order the Bush 
administration is pursuing under title 6 can be accomplished. I think 
that makes eminent sense.
  I look forward to the committee's acceptance of the amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 24179]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is almost 9 p.m. on the east coast, and 
out in California, where I used to live when I was in the Navy, I guess 
it is almost 6 o'clock. For the most part, here on the east coast, 
people have made their way home from work and school and they have 
finished their dinners and are getting ready to call it a day. Out on 
the west coast, they are still stuck in traffic. Between here and there 
are different variations of those two conditions.
  I wish to start off by expressing my thanks to Senator Murray and to 
Senator Bond and members of their subcommittee for putting together 
what I think is a strong and a thoughtful bill. It is a challenge 
because we don't have unlimited resources to do that. It was a lot of 
work. So thanks to you and your staffs for providing the leadership.
  I wish to talk a little about the importance of investing in our 
infrastructure. Maybe it is a bit different from what others have said 
today and earlier this week on this matter. I used to serve on the 
Amtrak board of directors when I was Governor, nominated by President 
Clinton to serve, and I actually come from a family of railroaders. My 
grandfather, on my father's side, was a railroader, and he took me and 
my sister on our first train ride when we were about 5 years old in 
West Virginia. I have been interested in trains, I suppose, ever since.
  I think a lot of people feel that passenger rail was in its heyday in 
the first part of the last century. I suppose, to some extent, that is 
true. To a lot of people, passenger rail service is something that was 
big then and not so important now. They might be right. But I have a 
hunch that in some ways the best days for passenger rail could lie 
ahead in this country.
  Our oldest son came home a couple of weeks ago from visiting Europe 
with some of his friends, and they had a chance to travel throughout 
Europe and the continent and to ride some terrific trains and also to 
ride some that weren't so terrific. My family and I were in Italy last 
summer, and we had a chance to ride some terrific trains, too, but also 
some that were not so terrific. But in a place where populations are 
fairly dense, in a place where the geography is actually rather 
compact, a lot of folks ride trains, as we know, and they invest a lot 
of their money in rail service.
  They do so for reasons we ought to consider. They invest in passenger 
rail because they have congestion on the highways. They invest in 
passenger rail because they have congestion around their airports and 
in their airspace. They invest in passenger rail because they have 
concerns about dependence on foreign oil. They want to reduce their 
dependence on foreign oil. They invest in passenger rail because they 
want to reduce the emission of harmful materials or substances into and 
foul their air.
  When you think about it, we have similar concerns in this country 
too. We have congestion on our highways. We can see it all across the 
country tonight, from east to west, as people are heading for home 
after work. We can see it around our airports almost anytime we try to 
fly out of an airport. Whether it is an airport in Seattle or Columbus 
or Cincinnati or Cleveland or whether it is an airport in Philadelphia, 
which is a suburb of Wilmington, DE, we have concerns about congestion 
on our highways and in the air in America.
  We have concerns about our enormous dependence on foreign oil. Almost 
60 percent of our oil comes from places beyond our borders and a lot is 
controlled by people who don't like us very much and some places that 
are fairly unstable. I am convinced every time I fill up my old 
Chrysler Town and Country minivan, which now has 175,000 miles on it--
pretty dependable car--that I am putting money in the pockets of people 
around the world in some of those unstable places and who are going to 
use our money to hurt us. That is not too smart.
  So we have that concern that we share with folks in other places 
around the world that invest in passenger rail. We have problems with 
air quality. We have great concerns with climate change and global 
warming, and we need to address this sooner rather than later.
  The answer to addressing all those concerns is not just passenger 
rail, but it is part of the tool in the toolbox. It is an arrow in the 
quiver. It is something we are starting to awaken to in this country 
and say, hey, maybe this is part of the answer.
  One of the encouraging things to me about this legislation is it 
acknowledges that passenger rail is part of the answer and it provides 
a bit more money for Amtrak, certainly a good bit more money for Amtrak 
than the administration requested, and a good bit more than was 
provided in the current fiscal year. It allows Amtrak to continue to 
upgrade the Northeast corridor so we can take these trains that will go 
125 or even 150 miles an hour and be able to use them more effectively 
at speeds approaching 125 or 150 miles per hour, to shorten the travel 
times between major destinations on the east coast and, by shortening 
U.S. travel times, to get more people to ride the trains.
  Believe it or not, more people are riding the trains these days. I 
saw some ridership numbers the other day that I found encouraging. I 
saw an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal--not a big advocate 
of better passenger rail service--and they mentioned that ridership on 
Amtrak nationwide is up this year about 6 percent. Ridership on the 
Acela Express, the high-speed trains in the Northeast corridor, is up 
about 20 percent. In places in the Midwest, the Chicago to St. Louis 
run, ridership is up about 50 percent this year. Out on the west coast, 
where they invest a lot of money in passenger rail, not just Federal 
money but a lot of local money, State money, their ridership is up 
about 15 percent. So people are starting to wake up to the idea that 
passenger rail might be a part of the solution.
  I think it is terrific in this legislation that we think the Federal 
Government has some obligation to be a part of helping us to capture 
that potential. One of the reasons why more people are starting to ride 
trains is because we get tired of sitting in airports waiting to get on 
an airplane. We get tired of sitting on the airplane at the gate. We 
get tired of waiting for our airplane to take off as we sit on the 
taxiway or the runway until we finally get released from air traffic 
control.
  Ontime performance for Amtrak nationwide is about 70 percent, about 
the same as airlines. But ontime performance for Acela Express, the 
high-speed express service, is almost 90 percent. Almost 90 percent. A 
lot of those trains are being run full these days. Part of the success 
for Amtrak, not the whole solution but part of it, is to make the 
express service, the Acela Express service--which is very popular, very 
much in demand, and is a premium service that people pay a lot of money 
to ride--to use the monies generated from that service to use as a cash 
cow to help support the other train service Amtrak provides where, 
frankly, they don't make the kind of money or generate the kind of 
revenues such as those generated by the Acela Express.
  There is a complement to the legislation that is before us tonight in 
terms of the Amtrak investment. There is complement legislation that 
has been offered by Senator Lautenberg, Senator Lott, myself, and 
others that is called the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 
of 2007. It is basically a reauthorization for Amtrak and says: Let us 
not worry about a line or let us not stop with a line in an 
appropriations bill, however important that is--and it is important--
but let us look at the whole system nationwide and come up with ways we 
can provide, on an ongoing basis, for a more cost-effective service, 
maybe better quality service, and to provide incentives for States to 
invest in that service as well as the Federal Government.

[[Page 24180]]

  It is legislation I hope we will take up on the floor. Believe it or 
not, we passed it about year and a half ago as an amendment to an 
appropriations bill, but it died in conference. We hope to take it up 
on its own and pass it. Representative Oberstar, in the House, has 
indicated a strong interest in working with us on companion 
legislation, and my hope is we will do that.
  One last thing I wish to mention. For the last couple years, Senator 
Voinovich and I have spent a fair amount of time talking with one 
another and with others, and having people talk to us, about the need 
for investing in our infrastructure--not just passenger rail but 
investing in our infrastructure. And not just highways and bridges but 
wastewater treatment systems, clean water systems, flood control 
systems, and levees--infrastructure in a broader context.
  As a politician, I have been a State treasurer, a Congressman, a 
Governor, and now a Senator. I know from experience that we love having 
ribbon cuttings. We like to cut a ribbon on a new highway or to open a 
new bridge. We like to have a ribbon cutting on a new runway at an 
airport or a new terminal. We like to build things that are new. We 
don't always want to spend the money to maintain what is not new or 
what once was new and now has begun to degrade in its quality. Senator 
Voinovich and I have introduced legislation that has been passed 
without a dissenting vote in the Senate which says that even though 
maintaining our infrastructure isn't the sexiest of issues, it is an 
issue that demands our attention.
  What we propose is to set the stage for the next administration and 
the next Congress in a way that will better ensure that we address our 
aging infrastructure. And for a couple of reasons: One, for health and 
safety reasons; two, for economic reasons; and, three, for competitive 
reasons, to enable us to have a more vibrant economy and be competitive 
with the rest of the world in which we are competing and cooperating.
  One of my colleagues tonight was talking to us about delegating our 
responsibilities to commissions, and she expressed her dismay that we 
did so much of that. Sometimes creating a commission is not so good an 
idea; other times, it can be a very good idea, as we saw in 1982. 
Social Security was about to go under, and so we created a blue-ribbon 
commission, led by Alan Greenspan, with a lot of good people on it. 
That led to a nearly unanimous consent agreement in 1983 about what we 
needed to do to save Social Security, literally from its demise that 
year. So we know from experience that commissions can serve a most 
positive purpose. The Postal Reform Commission, which the President 
appointed a couple years ago, worked with us in the Congress, and we 
passed very good legislation to bring the Postal Service into the 21st 
century.
  What Senator Voinovich and I came up with is an infrastructure 
commission that would hopefully tee up for the next President and the 
next Congress a game plan, if you will, for investing in our 
infrastructure. Our proposal would call not just for looking at roads, 
highways, bridges, not just rail transit, not just airports, not just 
wastewater treatment, not just levees and flood control systems, but 
really to look at our entire infrastructure broadly and see what needs 
to be addressed 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 15, 20, 25 years 
from now, what the priorities should be and how might we pay for that.
  Our legislation calls for this Commission, eight members: two 
appointed by the President, two by the leaders of the House and Senate, 
majority leaders in the House and Senate--Speaker of the House, 
majority leader in the Senate--and one each by the minority leaders of 
the House and Senate, eight in all. As it turns out, four would be 
appointed by Republican officials and four would be by Democratic 
officials, and their charge would be to come back to us after the 2008 
election--really, I think, sometime into 2009--and say this is a game 
plan. By working on it for the next year and a half, trying to build 
consensus, we would have a starting-off point in that next 
administration, with hopefully some buy-in from the new President and 
from our new Congress, to get started.
  In any event, our colleagues here in the Senate said that this idea 
had some merit. They were good enough to give it unanimous support. It 
was introduced in the House by a Representative from Minnesota named 
Ellison, Keith Ellison. We are hopeful the House will take up the 
measure and we can send it to the President before this year is out.
  I would make a mistake before concluding if I didn't also express my 
thanks to the chair, Senator Murray, and to our ranking member on the 
committee for supporting some of the projects that are important to our 
congressional delegation--Senator Biden, Congressman Castle and myself 
and others whom we are privileged to represent. A lot of people who 
drive through my State ride up and down on I-95. Sometimes they have to 
wait for a while to get through a toll booth. There is some money in 
here to reduce that congestion and those delays. There is money in here 
to widen I-95 a bit and enable traffic to move expeditiously through 
our little State. That is important. We have money for improving the 
transit service in the northern part of the State where there is a lot 
of congestion and helping to move traffic up and down the coastal part 
of our State where a lot of people come in the summer and even in the 
fall months to visit places such as Rehoboth Beach and Bethany and 
Dewey and Lewes.
  We are grateful for all of those investments in Federal dollars and 
more. They will benefit us in the State of Delaware, but because so 
many people travel through our State--we are only about 50 miles wide 
and roughly 100 miles long, but a lot of people drive through Delaware, 
travel through Delaware on trains and other means of transportation, 
their own vehicles--we want to make sure they can move through more 
quickly, have less congestion, put less bad emissions into the air, and 
save some gas. We think this legislation will help do all of those 
things.
  That is pretty much what I wanted to get off my chest tonight. I 
thank you for the opportunity to do it and look forward to tomorrow 
morning when we convene again and have an opportunity to vote on a few 
more amendments and hopefully then, as a body, rise up and pass this 
legislation and be prepared to go to conference with our friends from 
the House of Representatives.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment that will reform 
the Small Business Administration's, SBA, historically underutilized 
business zone, HUBZone, program. As ranking member of the Senate 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my top 
priorities is to champion our Nation's small businesses and to promote 
their needs and concerns.
  My amendment capitalizes on and enhances the HUBZone program, which 
helps to bring small businesses to distressed regions across our 
country. The HUBZone program stimulates economic development and 
creates jobs in urban and rural communities by providing Federal 
contracting preferences to small businesses.
  The SBA's most recent data shows the Federal Government met only 2.1 
percent of its statutory 3 percent HUBZone agency-wide ``goaling'' 
requirement. HUBZone small businesses represent only $7.2 billion of 
the total $340 billion allocated toward small businesses in fiscal year 
2006.
  My amendment would expand the reach of the HUBZone program. First, it 
would include, as a HUBZone, the communities impacted by a military 
base closed by a BRAC round. Under current law, only the military base 
itself qualifies as a HUBZone. My amendment would include surrounding 
communities which become economically devastated by the base closure.
  My amendment also requires the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to complete a feasibility study, with legislative 
recommendations, for addressing the issue of extending HUBZone status 
to rural impoverished regions that would otherwise qualify as a HUBZone 
region but

[[Page 24181]]

for being located in a county with a metropolitan statistical area. It 
is imperative that we address this inequity that impacts rural regions 
across the country, including the Penobscot region in my home State of 
Maine.
  The fact is small businesses are the driving force behind our 
Nation's economic growth, creating nearly three-quarters of all net new 
jobs and employing nearly 51 percent of the private sector workforce. 
My amendment enhances the HUBZone program which creates more jobs and 
helps our Nation's poorest regions.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support amendment No. 2818, 
offered by colleagues, Senators Durbin, Snowe, Collins, Kerry, and 
myself. This amendment would limit the amount of operating funds a 
small public housing authority will lose each year if they decide to 
opt out of asset management.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a final rule 
on September 19, 2005, that outlines procedures for public housing 
authorities to convert to asset management accounting. In the recent 
past, Congress has urged the Department to review and postpone the 
conversion process due to lack of guidance and difficulty many PHAs are 
facing to implement the new plan. Small PHAs are having an extremely 
hard time converting to asset management due to lack of funds and 
staff. Most of these agencies only have one or two people in the 
central office and their operating subsidy has been continuously 
underfunded. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations legislation includes language that will allow small 
agencies to opt out of asset management; however their operating fund 
subsidy will be reduced each year they do not convert.
  This amendment would help PHAs which operate 250 units or less and 
opt out of asset management by limiting the amount of money their 
operating subsidy can be reduced each year to 5 percent. In Wisconsin, 
numerous agencies have expressed their support for the stop-loss 
provision. For example, the Eau Claire Housing Authority would lose 
half of their subsidy by 2012, the Beloit Housing Authority would lose 
over $20,000 in operating funds in the first year and an additional 
$10,000 each year until 2012, and the Ladysmith Housing Authority, 
located in Rusk County, would lose over $15,000. These are just three 
examples out of the 46 agencies in Wisconsin that would be negatively 
impacted by HUD's rule if this amendment is not adopted.
  It is imperative that these agencies stay operational. They serve the 
housing needs for the low-income and elderly in rural communities 
across the country. I urge the adoption of this important amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a strong 
bill, H.R. 3074, the Transportation and Housing funding bill for fiscal 
year 2008. I congratulate Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Bond for 
producing a bill that invests in America's critical infrastructure and 
housing needs.
  This bill faces a veto threat from President Bush because it exceeds 
the funding levels he proposed back in February by about 5 percent. I 
congratulate my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, however, 
because the increased funding fits within the overall budget adopted by 
the Senate earlier this year. That budget has a smaller deficit than 
the one proposed by the President. We have different spending 
priorities than President Bush. But I am confident that the priorities 
reflected in this bill are America's priorities. The Appropriations 
Committee is to be congratulated for bringing us a bill that meets our 
needs and does so in a fiscally responsible fashion.
  The tragedy of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis this summer 
sent an alarm throughout the Nation. We need to embark upon a 
significant reinvestment in America's aging infrastructure. This bill 
makes an initial downpayment on this reinvestment. The bill also 
contains increases in other programs above the President's budget 
request. These, too, represent a much-needed investment.
  The Hope VI Housing Program is designed to revitalize severely 
distressed public housing. The President wanted to spend just $1 
million on this program which is so important to our aging cities such 
as Baltimore. This bill, I am proud to say, increases the funding level 
for Hope VI from $1 million to $100 million.
  Several other housing programs get needed boosts as well. The section 
202 program for low-income seniors is $160 million above the 
President's request. In addition, the bill contains an innovative 
voucher program, not requested by President Bush, which would provide 
section 8 vouchers to homeless veterans.
  This bill also contains a major increase in the funding level for the 
community development block grant program, providing more than $1 
billion above the President's request. The CDBG block grant program has 
spawned successful development and redevelopment in locations across 
the Nation. Its track record of success is visible in the revitalized 
neighborhoods in both urban and rural communities across Maryland and 
America.
  The President had zeroed out the successful Brownfields redevelopment 
program, but this bill provides $10 million. The brownfields programs 
operated by HUD, which is funded in this bill, and by EPA, which is 
separately funded, have been enormously successful. All across 
Baltimore we see former manufacturing facilities returned to productive 
use because of these programs. We have seen successful brownfields 
redevelopment projects in Hagerstown, in Prince George's County, and 
other sites across the State of Maryland. Our experience is not unique. 
This is a wonderful program, and I am proud that this bill reverses 
President Bush's misguided attempt to eliminate the Brownfields 
redevelopment program in HUD.
  Amtrak will receive nearly $1.5 billion in this bill, a $570 million 
boost over the President's request. Baltimore's Penn Station served 
more than 900,000 passengers on Amtrak in fiscal 2006. The BWI Airport 
station in Linthicum, MD, had more than 560,000 boardings and 
deboardings in fiscal 2006. Amtrak plays a vital role in our national 
transportation system, posting a record ridership of 24.3 million 
passengers last year. This bill provides Amtrak with the funding 
necessary to continue all current services and improve railway 
infrastructure.
  The list of programs that are critical to America and given 
appropriate funding resources in this bill is long. The major funding 
levels in this bill, from transportation to housing, represent a 
sensible investment in America.
  In Maryland there are a number of specific provisions that I also 
want to highlight. The bill contains transportation funding for 
projects that will help Maryland cope with the major influx of workers 
and their families associated with the most recent round of Base 
Realignment and Closures, or BRAC. Harford County, MD, is home to the 
Aberdeen Proving Ground. This bill contains $3 million for BRAC-related 
transportation projects in the immediate vicinity of the Base.
  Similarly, the bill contains $3 million for improvements on Maryland 
Route 355 in the area of the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, 
which will now be home to the Walter Reed Hospital operations. As many 
of my colleagues know, traffic in this area is already very 
challenging, so this funding is especially important to help us adapt 
to the infusion of additional workers at NNMC-Bethesda.
  Money is also included for two Transit Center operations. The Bi-
County Transit Center in Langley Park will serve bus passengers in 
Montgomery and Prince George's County. The Central Maryland Transit 
Operations Facility in the middle of the State is also funded at $1 
million. We must make sure that transit programs are our first option 
as we try to move increasing numbers of people in congested areas that 
suffer from poor air quality. This bill makes that key investment in 
Maryland.
  The bill provides $13 million for the final design of MARC commuter 
rail improvements and rolling stock. As

[[Page 24182]]

thousands of Maryland commuters can attest every day, the MARC commuter 
rail service is filled to capacity every workday. These funds will help 
to meet the needs of a growing system.
  The Transportation title also contains $500,000 to buy an unused 
railroad bridge in Baltimore. Funding will be used to assess, acquire, 
and restore the old CSX Railroad Bridge across the Middle Branch of the 
Patapsco River. That bridge will serve as the vital connecting link for 
the Gwynns Falls Trail, a highly valued pedestrian and bike path that 
traverses Baltimore City.
  The Housing and Urban Development title also includes funds for 
several Maryland-specific projects.
  The east Baltimore workforce development project will receive 
$200,000 as part of a comprehensive program to bring jobs, training and 
neighborhood revitalization to a distressed east Baltimore 
neighborhood.
  Montgomery County Long Branch pedestrian linkages project is funded 
at $400,000. This project will create pedestrian-friendly linkages from 
apartment complexes to the public resources and commercial core of the 
Long Branch neighborhood in Montgomery County.
  Colmar Manor is a small town just over the State line from the 
District of Columbia in Prince George's County. The Colmar Manor 
Community Center, which will serve 4 of the port towns along the 
Anacostia River, will benefit from the $600,000 provided in the bill.
  Mr. President, $500,000 in funding will support environmental 
education for underserved students in the Baltimore area at the new 
Irvine Urban Outreach Center.
  This bill addresses the needs of America and it addresses the needs 
of Maryland. I am proud to support it and encourage my colleagues to 
join me in doing so.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of H.R. 3074, the Transportation, Housing 
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2008.
  The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
provides $51.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $47.3 billion. When 
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $114.6 billion.
  The Senate-reported bill is $7 million below the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation for budget authority and is $286 million below its 
allocation for outlays. Section 218 of the reported bill exempts the 
Government National Mortgage Association from the requirements of the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Because the Federal Credit Reform 
Act is under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, this provision 
is subject to a point of order pursuant to Section 306 of the Budget 
Act. No other points of order lie against the reported bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
                      [Spending comparisons--Senate reported bill (in millions of dollars)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Defense        General purpose         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
    Budget authority...................................                156             50,900             51,056
    Outlays............................................                156            114,465            114,621
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget authority...................................  .................  .................             51,063
    Outlays............................................  .................  .................            114,907
House-Passed Bill:
    Budget authority...................................                156             50,582             50,738
    Outlays............................................                156            114,349            114,505
President's Request:
    Budget authority...................................                154             47,809             47,963
    Outlays............................................                154            112,613            112,767
 
                                        SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget authority...................................  .................  .................                 -7
    Outlays............................................  .................  .................               -286
House-Passed Bill:
    Budget authority...................................                  0                318                318
    Outlays............................................                  0                116                116
President's Request:
    Budget authority...................................                  2              3,091              3,093
    Outlays............................................                  2              1,852              1,854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Amendments Nos. 2829; 2852; 2817; 2819; 2820; 2830; 2831; 2850, as 
  Modified; 2839, as Modified; 2846, as Modified; 2848, as Modified; 
  2857; 2859; 2825, as Modified; 2837, as Modified; 2856; and 2834 En 
                                  Bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up the managers' package at the 
desk, noting that there are a number of these with modifications. I ask 
unanimous consent that the package be considered en bloc and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2834) was agreed to.
  The further amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2829

(Purpose: To require a study by the Government Accountability Office on 
the efficacy of strategies used by the Federal Aviation Administration 
   and the Department of Transportation to address flight delays at 
                     airports in the United States)

       On page 18, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 116. (a) Government Accountability Office Study on 
     Flight Delays.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study on the efficacy of strategies employed by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
     Secretary of Transportation to address flight delays at 
     airports in the United States.
       (2) Contents.--The study required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include an assessment of--
       (A) efforts by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to induce voluntary schedule reductions by air 
     carriers at Chicago O'Hare International Airport;
       (B) the mandatory flight reduction operations instituted by 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration at 
     LaGuardia Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National 
     Airport;
       (C) the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan 
     Airspace Redesign; and
       (D) any other significant efforts by the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration or the Secretary of 
     Transportation to reduce flight delays at airports in the 
     United States.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report including--
       (1) the results of the study required by subsection (a); 
     and
       (2) recommendations regarding which of the strategies 
     described in subsection (a) reduce airport delays most 
     effectively when employed for periods of 6 months or less.

[[Page 24183]]




                           amendment no. 2852

 (Purpose: To enable States to receive federally guaranteed loans for 
                  the benefit of nonentitlement areas)

       On page 137, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 232. (a) The amounts provided under the subheading 
     ``Program Account'' under the heading ``Community Development 
     Loan Guarantees'' may be used to guarantee, or make 
     commitments to guarantee, notes or other obligations issued 
     by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in the 
     State in accordance with the requirements of section 108 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: Provided, 
     That, any State receiving such a guarantee or commitment 
     shall distribute all funds subject to such guarantee to the 
     units of general local government in nonentitlement areas 
     that received the commitment.
       (b) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall promulgate regulations governing the administration of 
     the funds described under subsection (a).


                           amendment no. 2817

(Purpose: To ensure that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
awards capital fund bonuses to deserving high-performing public housing 
                              authorities)

       On page 87, line 9, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law or regulation, or any independent 
     decision of the Secretary, during fiscal year 2008, the 
     Secretary shall, in accordance with part 905.10(j) of title 
     24, Code of Federal Regulations and from amounts made 
     available under this heading, award performance bonuses to 
     public housing agencies that are designated high performers 
     under the Public Housing Assessment System for the 2007 
     fiscal year.''.


                           amendment no. 2819

(Purpose: To increase support for infrastructure improvements at tribal 
               colleges and universities, with an offset)

       On page 109, line 13, strike ``$59,040,000'' and insert 
     ``$61,440,000''.
       On page 109, line 23, strike ``$2,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,000,000''.
       On page 113, line 1, strike ``$175,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$172,600,000''.


                           Amendment No. 2820

(Purpose: To expand the scope of the Inspector General's investigation 
of rail service disruptions and other delays in the delivery of certain 
                              commodities)

       On page 70, line 7, insert ``potatoes, specialty crops,'' 
     after ``ethanol,''.


                           Amendment No. 2830

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to 
establish and maintain on the homepage of the website of the Department 
 of Housing and Urban Development a direct link to the website for the 
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
                              Development)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall establish and maintain on the homepage of 
     the Internet website of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development--
       (1) a direct link to the Internet website of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development; and
       (2) a mechanism by which individuals may anonymously report 
     cases of waste, fraud, or abuse with respect to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development.


                           Amendment No. 2831

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish and 
     maintain on the homepage of the website of the Department of 
   Transportation a direct link to the website for the Office of the 
         Inspector General of the Department of Transportation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish and maintain on the homepage of the Internet 
     website of the Department of Transportation--
       (1) a direct link to the Internet website of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of Transportation; and
       (2) a mechanism by which individuals may anonymously report 
     cases of waste, fraud, or abuse with respect to the 
     Department of Transportation.


                    Amendment No. 2850, As Modified

     The Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration may 
     conduct a study of the public transportation agencies in the 
     urbanized areas described in section 5337(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code (referred to in this section as 
     ``agencies'').
       (b) The study conducted under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) analyze the state of repair of the agencies' rail 
     infrastructure, including bridges, ties, and rail cars;
       (2) calculate the amount of Federal funding received by the 
     agencies during the 9-year period ending September 30, 2007, 
     pursuant to--
       (A) the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (Public Law 102-240);
       (B) the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     (Public Law 105-178); and
       (C) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
     Transportation Equity: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-
     59);
       (3) estimate the minimum amount of funding necessary to 
     bring all of the infrastructure described in paragraph (1) 
     into a state of good repair; and
       (4) determine the changes to the rail modernization formula 
     program that would be required to bring all of the 
     infrastructure described in paragraph (1) into a state of 
     good repair.
       (c) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report that 
     contains the results of the study conducted under this 
     section.


                    amendment no. 2839, as modified

       On page 95, line 25, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, from amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading, 
     $25,000,000 may be made available to promote broader 
     participation in homeownership through the American Dream 
     Downpayment Initiative, as such initiative is set forth under 
     section 271 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12821).''.


                    amendment no. 2846, as modified

       On page 137, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 232.  Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may--
       (1) develop a formal, structured, and written plan that the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development shall use when 
     monitoring for compliance with the specific relocation 
     restrictions in--
       (A) the Community Development Block Grant entitlement 
     program; and
       (B) the Community Development Block Grant State program 
     that receives economic development funds from the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development; and
       (2) submit such plan to the Committee on Appropriations of 
     both the Senate and the House of Representatives.


                    amendment no. 2848, as modified

       On page 137, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 232. (a) Required Submissions for Fiscal Years 2007 
     and 2008.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may submit to the relevant authorizing committees 
     and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives for fiscal year 2007 and 2008--
       (A) a complete and accurate accounting of the actual 
     project-based renewal costs for project-based assistance 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f);
       (B) revised estimates of the funding needed to fully fund 
     all 12 months of all project-based contracts under such 
     section 8, including project-based contracts that expire in 
     fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008; and
       (C) all sources of funding that will be used to fully fund 
     all 12 months of the project-based contracts for fiscal years 
     2007 and 2008.
       (2) Updated information.--At any time after the expiration 
     of the 60-day period described in paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may submit corrections or updates to the 
     information required under paragraph (1), if upon completion 
     of an audit of the project-based assistance program under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f), such audit reveals additional information that may 
     provide Congress a more complete understanding of the 
     Secretary's implementation of the project-based assistance 
     program under such section 8.
       (b) Required Submissions for Fiscal Year 2009.--As part of 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget 
     request for fiscal year 2009, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall submit to the relevant authorizing 
     committees and to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives complete and detailed 
     information, including a project-by-project analysis, that 
     verifies that such budget request will fully fund all 
     project-based contracts under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) in fiscal year 2009, 
     including expiring project-based contracts.


                           amendment no. 2857

  (Purpose: To prohibit the Federal Transit Administration from using 
 funds appropriated under this Act to promulgate regulations to carry 
           out section 5309 of title 49, United States Code)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided or limited under this 
     Act may be used to issue a final regulation under section 
     5309 of title 49, United States Code.

[[Page 24184]]




                           Amendment No. 2859

   (Purpose: To limit the amount available for the Urban Partnership 
  Congestion Initiative under section 5309 of title 49, United States 
                                 Code)

       On page 50, line 21, insert ``Provided further, That of the 
     funds available to carry out the bus program under section 
     5309 of title 49, United States Code, which are not otherwise 
     allocated under this Act or under SAFETEA-LU (Public Law 109-
     59), not more than 10 percent may be expended to carry out 
     the Urban Partnership Congestion Initiative:'' after 
     ``5309(b)(3):''.


                    Amendment No. 2825, as modified

       At the end of the sections under the heading ``General 
     Provisions'' at the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 1__. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF TOLLS 
                   ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTED USING FEDERAL 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Federal highway facility.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Federal highway facility'' 
     means--
       (i) any highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System 
     that is constructed using Federal funds; or
       (ii) any United States highway.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal highway facility'' does 
     not include any right-of-way for any highway, bridge, or 
     tunnel described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Tolling provision.--The term ``tolling provision'' 
     means section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 note; 112 Stat. 212);
       (b) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--None of the funds made available by this 
     Act shall be used to consider or approve an application to 
     permit the imposition or collection of any toll on any 
     portion of a Federal highway facility in the State of Texas--
       (A)(i) that is in existence on the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (ii) on which no toll is imposed or collected under a 
     tolling provision on that date of enactment; or
       (B) that would result in the Federal highway facility 
     having fewer non-toll lanes than before the date on which the 
     toll was first imposed or collected.
       (2) Exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     imposition or collection of a toll on a Federal highway 
     facility--
       (A) on which a toll is imposed or collected under a tolling 
     provision on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) that is constructed, under construction, or the subject 
     of an application for construction submitted to the 
     Secretary, after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) State Buy-Back.--None of the funds made available by 
     this Act shall be used to impose or collect a toll on a 
     Federal highway facility in the State of Texas that is 
     purchased by the State of Texas on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.


                    Amendment No. 2837, As Modified

       On page 70, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 1__.  The Secretary of Transportation may conduct a 
     study of the use of non-hazardous recycled aggregates and 
     other materials, including reused concrete and asphalt, in 
     highway projects, to the maximum extent practicable and 
     whenever economically feasible and consistent with public 
     health and environmental laws.


                           Amendment No. 2856

  (Purpose: To strike the prohibition on the use of appropriations by 
    Amtrak to support routes on which deep discounts are available)

       On page 44, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert ``of this 
     Act.''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 2826 Withdrawn

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez 
amendment that was previously agreed to be voted on in the morning be 
withdrawn; that is, Menendez amendment No. 2826.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________